The Petitioners attending the ruling hearing for case No. 45/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 Ponorogo regent election results dispute case, Tuesday (2/4/2025) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed the petition for case No. 45/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 Ponorogo regent election results dispute, filed by regent-vice regent candidate pair 1 Ipong Muchlissoni and Segoro Luhur Kusumo Daru. The Court asserted that the Petitioners’ arguments were legally groundless.

“On the petition’s subject matter, [the Court] rules the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” stated Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the ruling in the plenary courtroom alongside the other eight constitutional justices in the plenary courtroom on Tuesday, February 4, 2025.

In its legal consideration, delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court’s explained that it lacked confidence in the validity of the Petitioners’ main arguments in the petition. Therefore, the Court had no reason to disregard the provision of Article 158 of Law No. 10 of 2016 (Regional Election Law) on the Petitioners’ legal standing. This article outlines the vote margin requirements for filing a dispute regarding the 2024 Ponorogo regent election results, specifically the difference in votes between the Petitioners and the leading candidate pair.

The Court also did not find any special conditions or events considered having harmed the 2024 Ponorogo regent election, which could be used as a reason to disregard said provision. Therefore, this petition should be rendered inadmissible.

“Thus, [the Court views] no relevance to proceed with the a quo petition at the evidentiary hearing as the Court views that the stages of the 2024 Ponorogo regent-vice regent election have been carried out in accordance with the election stages and provisions,” Justice Saldi said.

For the 2024 Ponorogo election, a 1-percent vote margin (5,554 votes out of 555,408 total valid votes) was required to file an election results dispute. The actual vote margin between the Petitioners (254,618 votes) and the leading candidate pair (300,790 votes) was 46,172 votes, or 8.3 percent. Therefore, the actual vote margin exceeded the 1-percent requirement.

The Petitioners alleged the misuse of the regional revenue and expenditure budget to mobilize neighborhood unit (RT) heads in Ponorogo Regency to secure the win for candidate pair 2 Sugiri Sancoko and Lisdyarita (Relevant Party). The Court found this argument legally groundless, so it saw no reason to disregard the provisions of Article 158 of the Pilkada Law.

Also read:

Ipong-Segoro Reveal Neighborhood Unit Mobilization behind Ponorogo Incumbent Regent's Victory

Ponorogo KPU Verified All Candidate Pairs Certificate

At the examination hearing, incumbent candidate pair Sancoko-Lisdyarita (Relevant Party) stated that the Baret Merah organization (Red Barret, lit.) was created as a communication forum for all Ponorogo neighborhood heads, intended to support village community institutions as stipulated in Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 18 of 2018. However, the Court questioned the timing of the organization’s formation on May 3, 2024, and its inauguration on June 7, 2024.

The Relevant Party provided evidence of village community institution development programs and activities dating back to 2021, prior to the 2024 Ponorogo regent election. The Court determined that said organization’s establishment did not constitute a violation of Article 71 paragraph (3) of Law No. 10 of 2016 (Regional Election Law), as the Petitioners must provide clear evidence that the program had specifically benefited any particular candidate pair.

After reviewing and examining the evidence and facts presented during the hearing, the Court concluded that the Petitioners had failed to sufficiently prove the impact of the Baret Merah’s formation on the election process and their vote counts. The submitted evidence, including invitations to the Baret Merah’s inauguration and related activities, was insufficient to convince the Court that these activities had directly benefited the Relevant Party.

Author               : Mimi Kartika
Editor                : N. Rosi
Translator         : Ryan Alfian/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---