Sarmi KPU Denies Allegations of Meeting with Regent Candidate

The Respondent’s legal counsel Johanis H. Maturbongs (middle) in the examination hearing for Case No. 54/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 concerning the Sarmi Regency election results dispute. Photo by MKRI/Ifa

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Sarmi Regency KPU (Elections Commission), as the Respondent, denied holding a commissionary meeting with the 2024 Sarmi Regency candidate pairs. They refuted Case No. 154/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 during the examination hearing, which was held to hear statements from the Respondent, the Relevant Party, and Bawaslu, as well as to approve the parties' evidence.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah presided over the examination hearing on panel 1 on Thursday, January 30, 2025. The petition was filed by Candidate Pair 03 Agus Festus Moar-Mustafa Arnold Muzakkar, while Candidate Pair 01 Dominggus Catue-Jumriati became the Relevant Party.

The Sarmi Regency KPU (the Respondent) asserted the argument concerning the Sarmi KPU Commissioners is vague, citing failure to provide a detailed explanation about the commissioners and the parties they met. Meanwhile, the Petitioners stated that the meeting was held in Kebon Jeruk Jakarta on August 23, 2024.

"If the Petitioners meant that the Head of the Sarmi KPU met with Dominggus Catue (Regent Candidate 1), that is incorrect. On August 23, 2024, the Head of the Sarmi KPU signed a Cooperation Agreement with BPJS Employment Jayapura," said the Respondent's legal counsel, Johanis H. Maturbong.

Additionally, the Respondent denied the petition regarding double voting, particularly involving the Chair of KPPS (Polling Station Working Committee) at TPS 04 Mararena. They argued that the Petitioners failed to provide a clear explanation, especially regarding the voting time.

They argued that should it be true, it should have been documented in the C-Special-Incident Form, completed by the Petitioners’ witness. However, the witness signed the C-Results-KWK at the polling station (TPS).

"The Petitioners’ witness also did not report this to the polling station Supervisor," said Johanis.

The Relevant Party also testified in the examination hearing. They highlighted the Petitioners’ legal standing who should not have submitted the Sarmi Regency election results dispute petition to the Court, as it does not follow the provisions of Article 158 Paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016, where the minimum limit for the votes discrepancy to submit a dispute over the results to the Court is 2 percent for Sarmi Regency.

"The Petitioners’ vote acquisition was 1,353, while the Relevant Party's was 13,521, resulting in a difference of 12,168 votes, or 58%," said the Relevant Party's legal counsel, Imam Sutopo.

Also, the Relevant Party responded to the Petitioners’ argument on money politics or vote buying. The argument was refuted by the Relevant Party as they had never received a summons or sanctions from Sarmi Regency or Papua Province Bawaslu (Election Supervisory Body).

"The Petitioners even admitted that the report was not pursued further by Bawaslu due to insufficient evidence," stated Imam.

Thus, the Respondent and the Relevant Party requested that the Court affirm the validity of the Sarmi KPU Decree No. 199 of 2024 on the certification of the recapitulation of the vote count and the 2024 Sarmi Regency election results.

Meanwhile, Sarmi Regency Bawaslu testified that they had never issued a recommendation despite receiving 36 reports in the 2024 Sarmi Regency election process.

Of the 36 reports, 14 were not registered due to insufficient evidence. Yet, the rest were registered and some were forwarded to the Integrated Law Enforcement Center (Gakkumdu).

"15 were registered, discussed in Gakkumdu, and seven were recommended to investigators to carry out investigations at the police," said the Head of Sarmi Bawaslu Obet Cawer.

Of the seven reports that have been investigated, three are currently in court. According to Obet, the verdict for the three cases will be read out in court on Monday, February 3, 2025.

“What happened to the other four cases?” asked Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

“[Those were] insufficient evidence, Your Honor,” replied Obet.

Also read: Smear Campaign and Vote Buying Revealed at Sarmi Regent Election Hearing

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners argued about structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) vote buying. They also mentioned the Respondent's ignored this violation.

The Petitioners suspected the Relevant Party of a smear campaign against Yanni, candidate pair 1. They claimed that a banner rejecting Yanni’s candidacy had been placed on a pickup truck that circled Sarmi Regency. They also argued that religious leaders functioned to urge people to not vote for candidate pairs from a particular religion.

Therefore, the Petitioners in their petitums requested that the Court annul the Sarmi Regency KPU Decree on the certification of the recapitulation of the 2024 Sarmi Regency election results vote count.

News

Sarmi KPU Denies Allegations of Meeting with Regent Candidate