Tasikmalaya KPU’s legal counsel Sastriawan responding to the Petitioners at a hearing for case No. 321/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 Tasikmalaya regent election results dispute, Tuesday (5/20/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Tasikmalaya regent-vice regent candidates number 3 Ai Diantani Ade Sugianto-Iip Miptahul Paoz (Relevant Party) accused vice regent candidate number 2 Cecep Nurul Yakin of vote buying for the revote. The alleged that the candidate had openly distributed Rp50,000 bills to the people on the stage of the halal bi halal (Eid al-Fitr celebration event) in Sukaruas Hamlet, Sukaraja Village, Rajapolah District, Tasikmalaya Regency on April 3, 2025.

The allegation was leveled by Ai Diantani Ade Sugianto-Iip Miptahul Paoz’s legal counsel Eki Sirojul Baehaqi at the third hearing for case No. 321/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 Tasikmalaya regent election on Tuesday, May 20, 2025.

“Structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) election violation of [vote buying] by candidate pair number 2 in the revote of the 2024 Tasikmalaya regent-vice regent election has been reported to the panwascam (subdistrict election supervisory committee) along with the evidence,” Eki said.

Also read:

Cecep-Asep Question the Term of Office of Tasikmalaya Regent

Tasikmalaya Regency KPU: Ade Sugianto’s Period and Term Align with Regulations

Pros and Cons of Counting the Term of Office for Incumbent Regent Candidates in Tasikmalaya

Court Disqualifies Tasikmalaya Regent Candidate for Having Served Two Terms

Iwan-Dede Allege Determination of Tasikmalaya Regent Candidates Irregular 

On behalf of the Relevant Party, legal counsel Mohamad Ihsan Suryanegara countered that bus private company Primajasa, directly under Gerindra’s (Great Movement Party) West Java executive Amir Mahpud, had also committed vote buying in the Tasikmalaya revote. They used a database of the voters’ KTP (resident identity cards). Primajasa and Gerindra’s Tasikmalaya members, which endorsed candidate pair number 2, had allegedly collected voters’ data, ID cards, and distributed money of varying amount, starting from Rp30,000 to Rp100,000 per person to voters.

“The distribution was done by the coordinators of polling stations (TPS) or agents, with one agent coordinating one polling station, to collect dozens to hundreds of voters’ data, that is, resident identity cards (KTP) with a fee of Rp5,000 per ID card,” Ihsan said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah on panel 1.

Also read: Constitutional Court Decision No. 132/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025

Following KPU Regulation

The Relevant Party refuted the allegation the Petitioners (regent-vice regent candidates number 1 Iwan Saputra-Dede Muksit) had leveled against them that regent candidate number 3 Ai Diantani Ade Sugianto had violated Article 7 paragraph (2) letter n of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Elections of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Regional Elections). They argued that they had followed the stages under the General Elections Commission (KPU) Regulation No. 8 of 2024 in conjunction with the KPU Regulation No. 10 of 2024 on the stages and schedule of the election of governors-vice governors, regents-vice regents, and mayors-vice mayors.

“In fact, candidate pair number 2 or the Petitioners did not have the right to run in the 2024 regent-vice regent revote following the Constitutional Court Decision No. 132/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025. Therefore, the Respondent’s certification of candidate pairs number 1 and 2 in the 2024 Tasikmalaya regent-vice regent revote was unlawful,” said Eki Sirojul.

Petitioners’ Assumption

The other Relevant Party, candidate pair number 2 Cecep Nurul Yakin–Asep Sopari Al-Ayubi, said through legal counsel Gatot Rusbal that that factually, the implementation of the 2025 Tasikmalaya regent-vice regent revote following the Constitutional Court decision had been accurate and followed statutory laws and regulations. They argued that the Petitioners’ allegation was merely assumption and narrative aimed at obscuring the revote results, so the Court has grounds to reject the a quo petition.

“The Petitioners have misunderstood the provision under Article 70 paragraph (3) of Law No. 10 of 2016, which they intentionally elaborated under the assumption of abuse of power as if the Relevant Party had used their power to mobilize state civil apparatus, village chiefs, and heads of Puskesmas (community health centers), and heads of RT (neighborhood units) and RW (community units) to win votes in a structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) manner, which was inaccurate. If the assumption was true, they should have report it to the Tasikmalaya Regency Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) for the Petitioners’ allegation of administrative violation to be processed in tiers, from Bawaslu, the state administrative court, and even until cassation in the Supreme Court so that there is legal certainty,” Gatot explained.

Verification of Candidates

Through legal counsel Sastriawan, the Tasikmalaya KPU as Respondent said that the Constitutional Court in its consideration for Decision No. 132/PHPU-BUP.XXIII/2025 and the Central KPU Official Letter No. 494/PL.02-SD/06/2025, so the candidate pairs’ registration process was only for Ade Sugianto’s substitute. Meanwhile, other candidate pairs were not reregistered since they had been verified during the registration for the simultaneous regional election of November 2024.

Therefore, Sastriawan added, the Respondent believes the two other candidate pairs—Iwan Saputra-Dede Muksit Aly and Cecep Nurul Yakin-Asep Sopari Al-Ayubi—was not ordered by the Court to reregister. They only followed the subsequent process, i.e. the certification of candidate pairs, alongside Ai Diantani Ade Sugianto-lip Miptahul Paoz.

“Therefore, the Petitioners’ conclusion that only candidate pair number 3, who were disqualified by the Constitutional Court decision, reregistered while the others did not reregister does not mean that the registration stage did not align with the KPU regulation. Candidate pair number 3 registered to the KPU because they had been ordered by the Constitutional Court, and they were supposed to do so,” Sastriawan explained.

Also read:

Petition for Case No. 321/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025

Respondent’s response

Statement by Relevant Party

Statement by Relevant Party

Statement by Bawaslu

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Tiara Agustina
Translator     : 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.

---