The Petitioners’ legal counsel attending the ruling hearing for Case No.183/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the dispute over the 2024 Pamekasan regent election results, Monday (2/24/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the petition on the dispute over the 2024 Pamekasan regent election results, filed by Candidate Number 3 Muhammad Baqir Aminatullah and Taufadi, inadmissible. The Decision No.183/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 was read out by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Monday, February 24, 2025. “[The Court] declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” the chief justice stated.
In the legal consideration delivered by Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani, the Court argued that all of the arguments of the Petitioners’ petition had no basis in law. Thy include the arguments regarding procedural flaws related to deceased residents and migrants who had voted in the 2024 Pamekasan regent election as well as the incidence of a voter who cast more than once. “The Court is of the opinion that the arguments of the Petitioners’ petition are unreasonable according to law in their entirety,” Justice Arsul emphasized.
No Explanation on NIK and Polling Station
In the context of procedural flaws related to deceased citizens who voted in the 2024 Pamekasan regent elections as argued by the Petitioners, the Court said that out of 112 polling stations disputed, only at 18 polling stations were the names of deceased voters mentioned. In fact, the Court found that the evidence of statement letters from the village heads and from the heirs did not show the alleged deceased voters’ resident identity numbers (NIK) and ID card (KTP) copies, which could be used to identify the voters in question.
“Because the evidence filed by the Petitioners is only in the form of statements without NIK and ID card copies to be able to identify voter population data in question, the Court cannot be sure of the truth of the arguments of the Petitioners’ petition,” Justice Arsul argued.
The Court also found legal facts on several deceased voters mentioned by the Petitioners who are still alive. This was obtained by the Court after examining the evidence filed by the Pamekasan Regency KPU (Elections Commission) as the Respondent and Candidate Pair Number 2 Kholilurrahman and Sukriyanto (Relevant Party) in the form of statement letters and copies of voter ID cards.
“After the Court examined the evidence filed by the Respondent and the Relevant party in the form of statement letters and copies of ID cards of the voters in question, the names of voters in in the Respondent’s rebuttal and the testimony of the Relevant Party turned out to be alive,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said.
Vote Change Insignificant
The Court admitted that a voter had double voted in the 2024 Pamekasan regent election as argued by the Petitioners. However, it could not identify the person and at which polling station the incident had occurred, other than as mentioned in the petition and the testimony of the Pamekasan Regency Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body).
“In addition, there was no other evidence that can affirm the truth of the incident in question in the form of objection or C-model form,” stated Justice Arsul.
The Court stated that even if it had been true that the incident had occurred and a revote at four polling stations as follows had been ordered: TPS 4 of Tebul Timur Village, TPS 8 of Waru Timur Village, TPS 5 of Panaan Village, and TPS 7 of Blaban Village, it would not have significantly affected the vote acquisition of the Relevant Party. This is based on the results of the Court’s examination of the total number of voters at the four polling stations amounting to 2,076 voters: 519 votes from TPS 4 of Tebul Timur Village, 196 votes from TPS 8 of Waru Timur Village, 579 votes from TPS 5 of Panaan Village, 572 votes from TPS 7 of Blaban Village. Even if the entire votes from those polling stations had been given to the Petitioners, it would not have significantly affected the vote acquisition of the Relevant Party.
“Therefore, the argument of the a quo petition is unreasonable according to law,” Justice Arsul stressed.
No Legal Standing
Based on the above facts and legal considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the arguments of the Petitioners’ petition were not legally justified in their entirety. The Court stated that the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the petition. The Court referred to Article 158 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 10 of 2016 on legal standing to rule that the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the petition.
“Considering that based on the entire description of the legal considerations above, the Petitioners’ petition does not fulfill the provisions of Article 158 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 10 of 2016 regarding legal standing,” stated Justice Arsul.
Although in the a quo case the Court has set aside/delayed the application of Article 158 paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 by conducting a further evidentiary hearing, it was found that the main arguments of the Petitioners’ petition were unreasonable according to law. The Court then considered the Petitioners’ legal standing. The vote margin between the Petitioners and the candidate pair who won the most votes was at most 1% multiplied by 572,293 votes (total valid votes), or equal to 5,723 votes. However, the actual margin between the Petitioners and the Relevant Party’s votes was 291,246 votes, or equivalent to 4.81%. This means that the vote difference exceeded the threshold stipulated in Article 158 of Law No. 10 of 2016.
“Even if the provision was ruled out, quod non, it turned out that the main arguments of the Petitioners’ petition are unreasonable according to law,” stated Justice Arsul.
Also read:
Pamekasan Regent Election Flawed, Baqir-Taufadi Suspect KPPS
KPU and Bawaslu Deny Procedural Flaws in Pamekasan Regent Election
Court Highlights Deceased and Out-of-Town Voters in the Pamekasan Regent Evidentiary Hearing
Pamekasan regent-vice regent candidate pair 03 Muhammad Baqir Aminatullah and Taufadi (Baqir-Taufadi) argued a procedural flaw had occurred in the 2024 Pamekasan regent-vice regent election. The Petitioners’ legal counsel Gugum Ridho Putra leveled the allegation at the preliminary hearing for Case No. 183/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, January 8, 2025 on panel 2.
The Petitioners argued that the vote difference between them and candidate pair 02 was because of flawed procedure and structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) violations. They suspected the involvement of the polling station working committee (KPPS), as many polling stations (TPS) recorded nearly 100 percent voter turnout.
In the petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to order the Pamekasan Regency KPU to do a revote in seven districts including Pegantenan, Proppo, Palengaan, Batumarmar, Tlanakan, Pasean, and Pademawu.
Author : Ahmad Sulthon Zainawi
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator : Dinita Aktivia/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.
Monday, February 24, 2025 | 23:31 WIB 270