Evidence of Vote Discrepancies: Recount of DKI Jakarta DPRD Election Results Ordered
Image

The Petitioner’s legal counsel Julianto while attending a ruling hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute of Jakarta Province, Monday (6/10/2024) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) granted the Petitioner’s petition in part for Case No. 09-01-14-11/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 filed by the Democratic Party for the Jakarta Provincial DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) election in Electoral District of Jakarta 2. In its Verdict, the Court ordered a re-recapitulation for the DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) in Election District of Jakarta 2 at 233 polling stations (TPS) of Cilincing Subdistrict. The verdict was read out by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Monday, June 10, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

“[The Court] grants the Petitioner’s petition in part; declares the vote acquisition results for the Regional Legislative Council candidate for Special Capital Region of Jakarta Province, Electoral District of Jakarta 2 at 233 TPS in Cilincing Subdistrict… a re-recapitulation of votes must be carried out,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court has juxtaposed the examination results of the 3 TPS in the hearing with the results of the Court's examination of C.Result Form submitted by the Respondent. From the comparison, it found differences in vote acquisition between the Bawaslu's (Elections Supervisory Body) data, the Respondent in its written response, and data in the Respondent's C.Result Form. The difference in data acquisition occurred between the C.Result and/or C.Result Copies Forms and data according to the Respondent taken from D.Result Form. In other words, this issue occurred during recapitulation at the sub-district level, in casu Cilincing Sub-district. It also explained that none of the parties, neither the Respondent, the Relevant Parties, nor Bawaslu could clearly explain the difference in vote acquisition. Bawaslu even stated in its statement that based on the Monitoring Report (LHP) of the Cilincing Sub-district Panwaslu (Elections Supervisory Committee), when the recapitulation of the vote count was carried out by the Cilincing Sub-district PPK, there were no special events related to the Petitioner's Petition. The Petitioner’s written objection was only submitted at the end of the recapitulation, namely after the stipulation of the vote acquisition by the Cilincing Sub-district PPK.

Justice Arief said that although the difference in vote acquisition was only seen in 3 TPS out of 233 TPS in question as a matter of the trial fact, but because the evidence in the form of the D.Result form of Sub-district submitted by the Respondent was incomplete, no page regarding the vote acquisition of political parties at each TPS (Attachment to D.Result form), as a result the Court could not compare the vote acquisition of political parties as argued by the Petitioner in C.Result with the D.Result forms of Sub-district.

Moreover, according to the Court, the C.Result Form submitted by the Respondent was also incomplete for all 233 TPS. Thus, the Court cannot determine the correct vote acquisition for each political party - in this case the NasDem (National Democratic Party).

“Therefore, to obtain fair legal certainty regarding the results of the general election and to protect the constitutional rights of voters, which is also in the context of upholding the principles of direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair elections, according to the Court, it is necessary to conduct a Recapitulation of Votes regarding the filling of the Jakarta Provincial DPRD Member for Electoral District of Jakarta 2 at the Cilincing Sub-District PPK based on C.Result Form for all 233 TPS,” said Justice Arief.

Also read:

Democrat, NasDem Compete for Ninth DPRD Seat in Jakarta 2

Recapitulation Went Smoothly, Court Asked to Reject Democrat’s Petition in Jakarta 2

Democratic Party Expert Highlights Discrepancy Between C and D Form Results as Key Issue in 2024 Legislative Election

Not Proven

As for the Petitioner's argument regarding the additional NasDem votes of 2,402 votes spread across the 233 TPS in 7 villages of Cilincing Sub-district, North Jakarta City, the Court has juxtaposed the evidence in the form of Petitioner's version and the Respondent's version of C.Result Form and/or C.Copy Result Form, Bawaslu's version of C.Copy Result Form and the D. Result Form of Sub-district submitted by the Petitioner and Respondent.

He said that regarding the D. Result Form of Sub-district submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent, after the Court carefully conducted examination, it found that the D.Result Form of Cilincing Sub-district submitted by the Petitioner did not contain signatures of the PPK or the political party witnesses. It also did not include the time and place of the recapitulation at the sub-district level. “Thus, the Court cannot be convinced of the correctness of the D. Result Form of Sub-district,” he said.

As for the D.Result Form of Cilincing Sub-district submitted by the Respondent, according to Justice Arief, contained the time and place of the recapitulation at the sub-district level and there were also signatures of the PPK and political party witnesses. However, the page on the D. Result Form of Sub-district in question was incomplete, namely there were no pages regarding the vote acquisition of each political party at each TPS (Attachment to D.Result Form), so the vote acquisition of each political party is only described in the Respondent's Response.

Furthermore, he said that this was also confirmed by the Respondent's legal counsel at the hearing on May 30, 2024. Therefore, according to him, although the Respondent has described the vote acquisition of political parties at the sub-district level in the Respondent's Response, the description of the vote acquisition is not supported by evidence that can convince the Court that the vote acquisition of each political party in Cilincing Sub-district is correct.

“Thus, the Court cannot be convinced regarding the correct vote acquisition of political parties at the sub-district level as stated in the Respondent's Response,” said Arief.

 Humas: Tiara Agustina

Author            : Adam Ilyas
Editor              : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                     : Tiara Agustina

Translator     : Putri Ratnasari/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 10, 2024 | 16:30 WIB 56