The Petitioner’s legal counsel Totok Prasetiyanto attending a ruling hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute case No. 264-01-04-35/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024, Friday (6/7/2024). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The 2024 DPR (House of Representatives), Papuan People’s Representatives’ Council (DPRP) and Regency/City Legislative Council (DPRK) of South Papua Province, filed by Golkar (Party of Functional Groups), was rejected entirely by the Constitutional Court (MK). The ruling hearing for case No. 264-01-04-35/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was held on Friday, June 7, 2024, in the plenary courtroom.

At the ruling hearing, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh delivered the Constitutional Court’s legal considerations, in which the Court revealed the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent (General Elections Commission/KPU) had changed the vote acquisition of Gerindra (Great Movement Party) and PAN (National Mandate Party) at the provincial plenary recapitulation meeting. Meanwhile, other parties’ votes did not change, as the changes did not match the vote acquisition on the subdistrict D-result form in Asmat Regency. The Court found legal facts that the a quo argument was not accompanied by adequate evidence.

Justice Foekh added that the Petitioner did not include the subdistrict D-result form as evidence even though it was important for the Court to compare with the regenct D-result form. Moreover, the Petitioner did not explain the difference in the vote acquisition of the political parties, including that of Gerindra and PAN before and after comparing the data. Therefore, it was difficult for the Court to ascertain the vote acquisition of the Petitioner and other political parties.

The Court also found legal facts based on the statement delivered by the Respondent’s witness Abraham Jamlean, who stated that at the plenary recapitulation of Asmat Regency, no objections were raised by the Petitioner’s mandate witness. Moreover, based on the regency DPR D-result evidence filed by Relevant Party I (NasDem), it is clear that the Petitioner’s witness signed the political parties and DPR candidates’ vote acquisition recapitulation minutes and certificate in the subdistricts in Asmat Regency.

“So, it can be interpreted that the Petitioner did not object to the results of the vote determination in Asmat Regency. Thus, the Petitioner’s a quo argument was unreasonable according to the law,” Justice Foekh said.

Also read:

Golkar Wants South Papua KPU’s Decision Reversed

No Witness Objections, KPU Asks Court to Dismiss Golkar’s Petition on South Papua 3

Golkar Witnesses Disclose Recapitulation in Mappi Regency

Data Correction

The Petitioner also argued that there had been an increase in the votes of Relevant Party III (PAN) for the DPR election in South Papua Province 3 by 260 votes, from 5,430 to 5,690, at the provincial recapitulation meeting. The Court found legal facts that the change was due to data correction at the provincial level.

Justice Foekh said the Court did not find any of the Petitioner’s evidence of C-result copies it based its allegation on PAN’s votes on. Instead, Relevant Party III (PAN) included evidence of a photocopy of a letter requesting the C-result form to the Mappi Regency KPU accompanied by a photocopy of the C-result copy from TPS 1 and 2 of Wiyage Village, Haju District to the Court, which showed that the vote acquisition of Relevant Party III (PAN) had confirmed what the Respondent determined. Thus, the Petitioner’s a quo argument was unreasonable according to law.

Author              : Utami Argawati
Editor                : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                    : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator         : Frity Michael br Sembiring/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.

---