The Respondent’s proxy Wagino and legal counsel testifying at the examination hearing for the 2024 regent election case No. 96/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 to hear the Respondent, the Relevant Party, and Bawaslu before panel 2 justices, Friday (1/24/2025). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – Candidate Pair 02 Aditya Putra and Abdul Hamid (Relevant Party) refuted the allegations made by Candidate Pair 01 Hendra Lesmana and Budiman (Petitioners) in the 2024 Lamandau regent election results dispute at the Constitutional Court (MK), particularly on the alleged practice of vote buying or “money politics”. Candidate Pair 02 countered by pointing out that Hendra Lesmana, the incumbent regent of Lamandau for 2018-2024, had held the power to commit money politics by exploiting regional government programs.

“In fact, based on the theory of power relations, the Petitioners hold the power to commit money politics and rice distribution because the [one of] the Petitioners is the incumbent candidate for Lamandau regent,” said Jeffriko Seran, the Relevant Party’s legal counsel, at the examination hearing held to hear testimonies from the Respondent, the Relevant Party, and Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) for Case No. 96/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on Friday, January 24, 2025, in one of the courtrooms.

The Relevant Party stated that those alleged to have distributed cash rewards and rice food packages from the Central Kalimantan Government program were not part of the campaign team of Candidate Pair 02. Additionally, there were no reports or findings from Bawaslu regarding the alleged incident. On the contrary, the Petitioner as the incumbent regent of Lamandau was claimed to have the potential to exploit the distribution of food packages, while the Relevant Party lacked both the capacity and the channels to misuse the regional government program as claimed by the Petitioners.

The Relevant Party also denied that the supporting team, campaign team, or sympathizers of Candidate Pair 02 had intimidated three of the Petitioners’ witnesses or volunteers. They argued that if any threats or intimidation had occurred, the Petitioners could have utilized the available channels, such as reporting the incident to Bawaslu.

Meanwhile, the Lamandau Bawaslu chairperson Yustedi stated that Bawaslu had received a report of alleged money politics violations committed by the team of Candidate Pair 02. Following the report, the Lamandau Bawaslu conducted an initial study and concluded that the report met the formal requirements but did not meet the material requirements, as the description of the incident failed to concretely explain the actions carried out by the reported party. As a result, the Lamandau Bawaslu issued a notification indicating that the reporting party had not submitted revision to the description and evidence by the deadline for such revisions.

Additionally, based on the results of the supervision conducted by the East Bulik District supervisory committee, no alleged violations related to the rice distribution carried out at the Yen Mart store were found.

“The rice distribution carried out at the Yen Mart store was intended as an expression of gratitude on behalf of Yenramler Sihombing to the surrounding community and was not an election campaign activity,” said Yustedi.

Additionally, the Lamandau Bawaslu received reports of alleged campaign violations and disruptions during the voting process and the counting period. However, Bawaslu issued a report status of termination, as Gakkumdu (Integrated Law Enforcement), consisting of Bawaslu, the police, and the Prosecution Office, collectively concluded that the reported actions did not constitute election crimes but rather general crimes.

“And [we] recommended that the complainant submit a report to the Lamandau Police,” said Yustedi before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani on panel 2.

On the other hand, the Lamandau KPU (Elections Commission) as the Respondent argued that all claims made by the Petitioners were unsubstantiated and did not meet the legal criteria for a revote as outlined in the prevailing laws and regulations. The Respondent further pointed out an inconsistency—in the posita, the Petitioners argued for a revote in 28 polling stations; however, in their petitum, the Petitioners erroneously listed only 25 polling stations, omitting 3 polling stations.

“The contradiction between the posita and petitum makes the Petitioners’ petition unclear and vague, or obscuur libel,” said the Respondent’s legal counsel Baron Harahap Saleh.

Also read: Lamandau Election Result Dispute: Intimidation and Threats at Polling Stations

At the previous hearing, Candidate Pair 02 Aditya Putra and Abdul Hamid (Petitioners), in their petitums, requested the Court to annul the Lamandau KPU Decree No. 812 on the certification of the 2024 Lamandau regent election results dated December 4, 2024, concerning the vote acquisition at the 25 polling stations, and order the Lamandau KPU to carry out a revote at those polling stations.

Author              : Mimi Kartika
Editor                : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                    : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator         : Nazila Rikhusshuba/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL) (RA)

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.

---