The Petitioner’s legal counsel Aan Sukirman attending a ruling hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute for West Java Province, Thursday (6/6/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the National Mandate Party’s (PAN) petition on the 2024 House of Representatives (DPR), Province and Regency/City Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) election results dispute (PHPU) in the electoral district (dapil) of West Java VI. The ruling hearing for case No. 92-01-12-12/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was held on Thursday, June 6, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

In its legal considerations, presented by Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Court explained that the Petitioner’s petition was related to the differences between the Petitioner’s version of the C-result copy and the Respondent’s version of the D-result form at the subdistrict level, which occurred in 588 polling stations (TPS) spread across 11 villages in 6 subdistricts in Bekasi City of the votes for three parties: PAN, the Party of Functional Groups (Golkar), and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), resulting in the Petitioner losing the sixth seat in the DPR election.

Furthermore, Justice Foekh continued, the Petitioner submitted written evidence marked Exhibits P-8 up to P-601, while in affirming its objection the Respondent submitted Exhibits T-2 up to T-603, and the Relevant Party corroborated their testimony by submitting Exhibits PT-4 up to PT-590, and in supporting their testimony Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) submitted Exhibits PK.14-4 up to PK.14-9.

Differences in C-Result Forms

After examining the evidence and comparing the Petitioner’s copy of the C-result form, the Respondent’s and the Relevant Party’s C-result forms, and Bawaslu’s C-result of copies, legal facts showed that the Petitioner’s evidence differed from those of the Respondent, Relevant Party, and Bawaslu. The difference in question lied in the Petitioner’s C-result copies, which showed different numbers, writing style, and signatures of organizers and witnesses when compared to the other pieces of evidence submitted by the Respondent, Relevant Party, and Bawaslu, which were identical.

Therefore, Justice Foekh continued, the Petitioner’s evidence containing the signatures of the election organizer’s endorsement did not convince the Court when compared to the evidence submitted by the Respondent, Relevant Party, and Bawaslu. It was suspected that the signatures of the polling committees (PPS) on the Petitioner’s C-result copies were made by the same person. Hence, the Court did not have confidence in the evidence submitted by the Petitioner.

Furthermore, Justice Foekh stated, after examining more carefully the evidence submitted by the Petitioner, Respondent, Relevant Party, and Bawaslu, the Court concluded that overall, the Petitioner’s C-result copies were not copies of the Respondent, Relevant Party, and Bawaslu’s C-result copies, which were identical.

“The difference between the Petitioner’s C-result copies and those by the Respondent, Relevant Party, and Bawaslu can be seen from the writing style of the numbers and letters, the signatures of the polling committee, and the witnesses’ signatures, so it did not convince the Court of the truth of the Petitioner’s evidence,” he explained.

No Legal Basis

Thereby, Justice Foekh continued, the Petitioner’s argument of vote reduction at 588 polling stations spread across 11 villages in 6 subdistricts in Bekasi City done by the Respondent in favor of Golkar and PKS and their legislative candidates were unreasonable. These villages include Aren Jaya and Duren Jaya Villages in East Bekasi Subdistrict; Kota Baru and Kranji Villages in West Bekasi District; Harapan Baru and Perwira Villages in North Bekasi District: Jakamulya Village in South Bekasi Subdistrict; Bantar Gebang, Cikiwul, and Ciketing Udik Villages in Bantar Gebang Subdistrict; and Jatiluhur Village in Jatiasih Subdistrict.

Considering all of the above legal considerations, the Court found the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the entire West Java VI electoral district unreasonable according to law. “The Petitioner’s arguments for the rest and remainder as well as other matters related to the a quo petition are not further considered because according to the Court they are irrelevant,” he said.

Also read:

Losing seats, PAN Asks West Java VI Tally Annulled

KPU: No Vote Transfer in West Java 6

Expert Alleges Vote Rigging and Election Crimes

Previously, the Petitioner stated that vote count discrepancy had resulted in a reduction of the Petitioner’s votes at 588 polling stations spread across 11 villages in 6 subdistricts in Bekasi City between PAN (the Petitioner), Golkar, and PKS.

According to the Petitioner, the significant reduction in votes resulted in the Petitioner losing the sixth DPR seat in the West Java VI electoral district. The Petitioner had raised objections to the Bekasi City recapitulation results at the city, provincial, and national levels.

Furthermore, during the recapitulation at the subdistrict level in the Bekasi City, the Petitioner’s witnesses did not sign the recapitulation minutes in 6 subdistricts. Additionally, the Petitioner also raised objections to the recapitulation results by the Bekasi City KPU to the Bekasi City Bawaslu with a letter dated March 13, received by the Bawaslu on March 15. However, the Bekasi City Bawaslu did not follow up or respond to these objections.

Therefore, in its petitum, the Petitioner requested the Court to annul the KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 as long as the valid vote acquisition and the valid votes for DPR candidates from Golkar, PKS, and PAN in Aren Jaya and Duren Jaya Villages in East Bekasi Subdistrict; Kota Baru and Kranji Villages in West Bekasi District; Harapan Baru and Perwira Villages in North Bekasi District: Jakamulya Village in South Bekasi Subdistrict; Bantar Gebang, Cikiwul, and Ciketing Udik Villages in Bantar Gebang Subdistrict; and Jatiluhur Village in Jatiasih Subdistrict.

Author              : Utami Argawati
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                    : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator         : Jessica Rivena Meilania/Yuniar W.

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.

---