Unfounded Arguments: Court Rejects Petition on East Aceh Regent Election Results

The Petitioners’ legal counsel at the ruling hearing for Case No. 44/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 East Aceh regent election results dispute, Monday (2/24/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

JAKARTA (MKRI) – On Monday, February 24, 2025, the Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition in its entirety on the 2024 East Aceh regent election results dispute, filed by Candidate Pair 01 Sulaiman-Abdul Hamid. The decision was read out at the ruling hearing held in the plenary courtroom.

"On the petition’s subject matter, [the Court] rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court stated that the Petitioners alleged the occurrence of structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) violations. These violations reportedly involved village heads influencing the vote acquisition of Candidate Pair 03 in 27 polling stations across 15 villages in Madat District and 17 polling stations across 10 villages in Birem Bayeun District. The Petitioners further claimed that 15 village heads in Madat District had openly declared their support for Candidate Pair 03, significantly impacting the vote acquisition in the area.

However, based on the facts presented at the hearing, the Court found that the Petitioners' claim regarding the lack of neutrality of village heads and village officials lacked sufficient legal evidence. Additionally, the reported violations had already been forwarded to the East Aceh voters supervisory committee (Panwaslih) and the relevant authorities for further action.

The Petitioners also argued that the 4,210 votes obtained by Candidate Pair 03 in Madat District and 2,605 votes in Birem Bayeun District should be annulled. However, based on the evidence presented, the Court concluded that this argument was legally groundless.

“The Petitioners argued for the annulment of 4,210 votes obtained by Candidate Pair 03 in Madat District, citing the partiality of village heads, village apparatus, and other officials. Similarly, in Birem Bayeun District, the Petitioners claimed that Candidate Pair 03's campaign involved village heads, heads of youth community, Tuha Peut (village consultative body), and PKK (Family Welfare Program) members, violating the principles of a free and fair election. As a result, they demanded the cancellation of 2,605 votes obtained in 10 villages of Birem Bayeun District. To support their claim, the Petitioners submitted written evidence (Evidence P-5 to P-56) and witness testimonies from Agus Dian Purnama and Masri. However, based on its legal considerations, the Court found their arguments to be legally groundless,” Justice Arief Hidayat explained.

Alleged Fraud in Simpang Ulim District Is Unproven

The Petitioners also claimed that fraud was committed by the district election committee (PPK), the polling station working committee (KPPS), and witnesses of Candidate Pair 03 in 14 polling stations across 11 villages in Simpang Ulim District. This allegation was based on a report submitted by the Petitioners’ witness Muzakkir on December 2, 2024.

However, after examining the evidence and hearing facts, the Court found that the Petitioners’ claim lacked sufficient evidence to establish a violation that could have significantly impacted the election results.

"The Petitioners allege in essence that there was a violation in the form of alleged fraud committed by the PPK, KPPS, and witnesses of Candidate Pair 03, which significantly affected the vote acquisition in 14 polling stations in 11 villages in Simpang Ulim District, as reported by the Petitioners’ witness Muzakkir through a report dated December 2, 2024. The reported events include the involvement of 11 PPK in 11 villages in Simpang Ulim District. Based on the legal contradictions above, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners’ a quo argument is legally groundless," said Justice Arief.

Vote Margin Does Not Affect Election Results

Meanwhile, Justice further Arief explained that after the Court examined and calculated the number of voters who filled out the attendance list based on the Respondent's evidence, the Court found that 263 voters had signed the attendance list. Therefore, even if there was a discrepancy between the number of voters who exercised their right to vote and those who signed the attendance list, the actual difference was only one voter, not 122 voters as claimed by the Petitioners. However, based on the C-results KWK regent model forms at TPS 001 in Paya Demam Lhee Village, the number of ballots used by voters—264—did not exceed the total number of ballots received, including the reserve ballots from the final voters list (DPT) at the polling station, which amounted to 372 ballots. Meanwhile, for TPS 003 in Meunasah Teungoh Village, after examining the Petitioners’ evidence, the Court found that the number of voters who filled out the attendance list was 233, as argued by the Petitioners. However, based on the C-results KWK regent forms at TPS 003 in Meunasah Teungoh Village, Pante Bidari District, the number of ballots used by voters was 269, indicating a discrepancy of 36 votes.

However, because the Respondent and the Relevant Party did not submit the same evidence for comparison, and there were no objections or special incident notes from the witnesses of the candidate pairs—especially since all witnesses had signed the disputed recapitulation results—and based on the statement of the East Aceh Regency Panwaslih, no information was found regarding alleged violations at TPS 003 Meunasah Tengoh Village, the Court was not convinced about the alleged voting exceeding the number of voters present. According to the Petitioners, this discrepancy arose due to a difference between the number of voters who signed the attendance list and the number of voters in the DPT, which could have affected the vote acquisition of one of the candidate pairs.

The Court is of the opinion that after carefully examining the evidence submitted by the parties and the facts revealed during the hearing, the Petitioners’ argument regarding the alleged violation—burning a car in Darul Aman District, which was allegedly owned by one of the Petitioners’ campaign team members and committed by the campaign team of the Relevant Party—remains unconfirmed. The East Aceh Regency Panwaslih had prepared a report on the results of its supervision dated November 19, 2024, stating that the cause of the fire had not yet been determined, as it was still awaiting the results of the police investigation.

Therefore, since all of these issues had been reported and were followed up by the East Aceh Police and had also been processed by the East Aceh Panwaslih, the Court found no relevance in further considering the arguments presented in the petition. Furthermore, the Petitioners did not specifically elaborate on their arguments, failed to provide sufficient evidence, and did not establish a clear connection between the alleged incidents and the vote acquisition of either the Petitioners or the Relevant Party.

News

Unfounded Arguments: Court Rejects Petition on East Aceh Regent Election Results