PDI-P Expert: C-Form Results and C-Form Copy Results Irreversible by PPS and PPK

The Petitioner’s expert Khairul Fahmi while testifying at the hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute of West Sumatera Province on Monday (6/3/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), as the Petitioner, presented Khairul Fahmi, a Constitutional Law Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Andalas University, as an Expert in the 

hearing for the 2024 DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) election results dispute for the electoral district of West Sumatera Province 4 for case No. 116-01-03-03/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024. Khairul stated that C-Form Results and C-Form Copy Results are completely irreversible by the Polling Committee (PPS) and the Subdistrict Election Committee (PPK) as applicable provisions.

"Because, such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the PPS or PPK," said Khairul in the plenary courtroom before Panel 1 presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah on Monday, June 3, 2024.

He explained that C-Form Results and C-Form Copy Results are forms "produced" by the  Polling Station Working Committee (KPPS) during the vote counting process, thus only the KPPS can make corrections to them. Corrections to C-Form Results and C-Form Copy Results by the KPPS can only be made during the vote counting process and cannot be done during the recapitulation process at the subdistrict level. This is because the correction process for C-Form Results and C-Form Copy Results is carried out during the vote counting meeting, and that meeting is already concluded at the polling station (TPS) level.

Khairul continued, C-Form Results is the primary data that will serve as a reference to resolve any issues that arise during the recapitulation process, and it also serves as the main reference in resolving election result disputes in the Court. If corrections are made to C-Form Results, then the primary data of the vote count will no longer exist.

Therefore, Khairul said, C-Form Results and C-Form Copy Results serve as the database for the PPK in conducting the recapitulation process at the subdistrict level. If there are discrepancies in the data matching results during the recapitulation process at the subdistrict level, then the data used as a reference for corrections is the data on the C-Form Results. Therefore, there should be no chance or opportunity to make corrections to the C-Form Results at the PPK level.

If there are still discrepancies such as differences in the number of votes that cannot be resolved after data matching, then the PPK takes steps to conduct a recount. The implementation process of the recount must also be recorded by the PPK in the D-Form Incidents.

In General Elections Commission Regulation (PKPU) No. 5 of 2024, corrections can be made at the subdistrict level; however, corrections are made to the Subdistrict D-Form Results that still contain errors based on the results of the examination and review after the PPK prints the relevant forms. Corrections to the Subdistrict D-Form Results are made before they are signed by PPK members and present witnesses. If after the recapitulation form is signed, objections still arise from witnesses or the Elections Supervisory Committee (Panwaslu), then the opportunity for correction remains open as long as the objections are deemed acceptable.

Meanwhile, Khairul continued, there are several legal facts related to the correction process carried out at the subdistrict level as stated in response of General Elections Commission (KPU) as the Respondent, namely the implementation of a recount at the subdistrict level, correction or revision regarding the C-Form Results, and C-Form Copy Results. Conducting a recount to resolve discrepancies or inconsistencies in the data of the vote count is a legitimate and justifiable action in order to address issues related to the recording of the vote acquisition.

Therefore, a recount in the recapitulation process at the subdistrict level is a follow-up action in accordance with the provisions and mechanisms stipulated in the General Election Law as well as the PKPU. However, the results of the recount should not be incorporated into the C-Form Results through revision, but rather should be documented separately in its own C-Form Results.

According to PKPU No. 5 of 2024, the correction process for the counting results documented in C-Form Results and C-Form Copy Results is carried out during the vote counting at the TPS by the KPPS. By making corrections to the C-Form Results during the recapitulation process at the subdistrict level (if done by the PPK), such action clearly does not comply with the mechanisms stipulated in the PKPU.

"Therefore, such correction may be qualified as an act contrary to the provisions of laws and regulations and the principles of implementing the recapitulation of election vote counts, especially the principles of legal certainty, orderly conduct of elections, and accountability in the process of vote count recapitulation," said Khairul.

Simultaneously, with the correction made to the C-Form Results, there arises a legal consequence in the form of the loss of authenticity of the C-Form Results. The C-Form Results should remain unchanged, reflecting what is received from the KPPS, and must not be altered during the result recapitulation process at any level. Even if there are errors in the C-Form Results, corrections at the subdistrict level should only be made through the D-Form Results, which is the responsibility of the PPK to complete and authenticate.

"Meanwhile, C-Form Results should be left as they are according to their original form. Because, in this way, the authenticity of the C- Form Results can be preserved," said Khairul.

Also read:

KPU: No Discrepancy of PDI-P and PKB’s Votes 

In its petition, the PDI-P argued the existence of irregularities and discrepancies between the C-Form Results of the TPS and the Subdistrict D-Form Results as well as the Regency Results up to the Provincial and National Results. Through PDIP's assigned mandate witness, the Petitioner has submitted  D-Form Objections during the vote count recapitulation at the regency/city level in Pasaman Barat.

The Petitioner compared the difference in vote acquisition between PDI-P and the National Awakening Party (PKB) based on the C-Form Copy Results and the D-Form Results in the West Sumatra Province 4. The Petitioner argued that there was an increase in PKB's vote acquisition at several TPS in Pasaman Barat and Pasaman Regencies. In contrast, there was a decrease in PDIP's vote acquisition at several TPS in both regencies.

According to the Petitioner, there was a reduction of 66 votes belonging to PDIP (C-Form Results: 27,379, D-Form Results: 27,313), while PKB's acquisition increased by 95 votes (C-Form Results: 27,231, D-Form Results: 27,326). The errors and mistakes made by the KPU as the Respondent have affected and harmed the valid votes of the Petitioner, therefore the Petitioner has filed a complaint of violations with the Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu).

As a result, the Petitioner found themselves in the 10th position out of nine seats, trailing behind PKB by a margin of 13 votes. Consequently, in its petitum, besides requesting the Court to annul KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024, the Petitioner also urged the Court to ascertain the accurate vote acquisition results based on the C-Form Copy Results of the Petitioner for the 2024 DPRD election for West Sumatra Province 4, 

Author  : Mimi Kartika
Editor   : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator     : Intana Selvira Fauzi/Fuad Subhan

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.



Monday, June 03, 2024 | 18:41 WIB 50