Former constitutional justice Maruarar Siahaan testifying as one of the Relevant Party’s experts at the evidentiary hearing for Case No. 293/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 Highland Papua regent election results dispute, Wednesday (2/12/2025). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the evidentiary hearing for Case No. 293/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 Highland Papua gubernatorial election results dispute on Wednesday, February 12, 2025. The hearing for the case was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Arsul Sani and Ridwan Mansyur on panel 2.

Governor Candidate 2 Befa Yigibalom and Natan Pahabol (Petitioners) presented six witnesses and experts to reinforce their arguments regarding the vote manipulation in the election. One of the witnesses, Agus Kogoya, revealed that Kai District in Tolikara Regency did not hold any voting whatsoever.

“There was no voting for the governor [election],” said Agus upon inquiry by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

Agus furthermore stated that nevertheless, a vote count recapitulation was held at the regency level. He revealed that he and several of his colleagues had been abducted and coerced by someone named William to surrender 100% of the votes from the district to Governor Candidate Pair 1 on November 29, 2024.

“It was on the 28th day [of November 2024] that we were abducted by the Highland Papua [Governor] Candidate Pair 1. We were taken into the residence of Mr. William himself by a crew of two cars. We went there and indeed the place was totally barricaded. There, we were detained and all of our mobile phones were confiscated. So, our mobiles were confiscated and the day after on the 29th, the man himself, Mr. William himself, told us to give 100% of the votes to [Tolikara] Regent Candidate Pair 4 and 100% of the votes to Highland Papua Governor Candidate Pair 1,” Agus revealed.

Another witness named Robi Wenda noted that the vote acquisition results from each of the districts had been altered at the regency level when the vote count recapitulation of Lanny Jaya Regency was submitted to the Highland Papua Provincial Elections Commission (KPU). For instance, initially, none of the votes in Kolawa District were for John Tabo, as shown in the C-result form.

“The entirety [of the votes] were for Befa (Relevant Party) and at the district-level plenary session, the entire number [of votes] had gone to Befa and none to John Tabo. However, during the dispatch to the [Highland Papua] KPU, the district election committee (PPD) crossed [the numbers] and [revised using] correction fluid. So, the votes were then dispersed,” said Robi.

Formal Requirements Not Met

The Highland Papua KPU as Respondent presented Aswanto as an expert at the hearing. Aswanto explained that the Petitioners’ petition did not fulfill the formal requirements, as their petitums were not outlined in the posita.

“It is not allowed to request something in a petitum unless it is outlined in a posita. In other words, posita is the basis to demand something,” said Aswanto.

He also testified that the vote margin threshold had not been met, nor there were any incidents necessitating the Court to follow Article 158 of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Governments.

“In my opinion, what was argued by the Petitioners cannot be deemed as a special incident, hence, I believe, Your Honors, that there is no obstacle nor issue to follow Article 158 [of the Regional Election Law] and declare the petition dismissed for not meeting the formal requirements: the formal requirement on [vote margin] threshold and the formal requirement on the agreement between posita and petitums.” Aswanto explained.

Election Denial May Impair the Law

The Respondent also presented expert Nur Hidayat Sardini. In his statement, Hidayat reported that the quantity of the people’s votes in an election is indisputable unless something arises to obstruct or annul such votes.

“Whoever attempts to deny the result of a general or regional election is certainly attempting to impair the law at the highest level, including the authority of the state,” Hidayat stated.

Hidayat further added that the General Election Law and the Regional Election Law have authorized the Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) to address administrative violations and election process disputes and the Integrated Law Enforcement (Gakkumdu) to address election crime violations. In other words, the election justice system regulates that complaints are resolved in a tiered mechanism.

“So, the election justice system has formal requirements. The formal [requirements] include examining who the petitioners are, who the respondents are, what are the violations, what are alleged, and so on. In essence, whatever is alleged, whatever is argued, all of those still have to be examined through the tiers stipulated in the laws,” Hidayat argued.

Threshold Cannot Be Bypassed

The Relevant Party, Candidate Pair 1 John Tabo and Ones Pahabol, presented Maruarar Siahaan as an expert. Concurring with Aswanto, Siahaan also mentioned the formal requirements of a petition.

Siahaan even stated that the Petitioners could not properly articulate their arguments from either formal or material angles. They also could not support their allegations, especially those related to the violations that should have been processed by Bawaslu. Thus, he opined that there is no window available for the Petitioners to petition, and they cannot bypass the threshold requirement, either.

“From the formal perspective, it cannot be deemed as qualified, even less so from the material perspective, to prove the facts outlined in the petition. There is no way in [for the petition], Your Honors. Thus, for this petition, I believe the panel knows best, but in my opinion, it cannot disregard the threshold requirement,” Maruarar concluded.

Also read:

Vote Manipulation in Highland Papua Provincial Election

Highland Papua KPU Denies Accusation of Vote Manipulation

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, January 15, 2025, Papua Highland Candidate Pair 2 Befa Yigibalom and Natan Pahabol (Petitioners) argued that the high vote acquisition of Candidate Pair 1 Befa Yigibalom and Natan Pahabol (Relevant Party) was caused by vote manipulation that occurred in three districts.

The Petitioner’s legal counsel Habel Rumbiak stated that there were 32 districts in Tolikara Regency of Papua Highland Province that had not conducted elections and plenary session at the regional election committee (PPD) level, and that the Relevant Party’s witnesses reported the election results unilaterally to the Papua Highland Provincial KPU (Respondent). Therefore, Rumbiak claimed that the Petitioner’s vote in the 32 districts should only be 0 votes because all voters’ votes were allocated to the Relevant Party.

“The overall voting results from the 32 districts should be declared invalid, particularly as they appear to have been unanimously and unilaterally in favor of Governor and Deputy Governor Candidate Pair Number 1,” he claimed.

In their petitums, the Petitioner requested the Court to annul the certification of the 2024 Papua Highland gubernatorial election results as stipulated in the KPU Decree No. 75 of 2024. Additionally, the Petitioner sought the Court’s certification of the Petitioner’s vote count of 614,643 votes and the Relevant Party’s vote count of 503,849 votes.

Also read:

Petition for Case No. 293/PHPU.GUB-XXIII/2025

Response by the Respondent

Statement by the Relevant Party

Statement by Bawaslu

 

(*) The noken voting system is carried out by communities in Papua, either through public agreement on vote allocation or through the delegation of votes to a tribal leader.

Author              : Ahmad Sulthon Zainawi
Editor                : N. Rosi
PR                    : Fauzan F.
Translator         : M. Hafidh Al Mukmin/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.

---