JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing with the agenda of listening to the Respondent's answers, the Election Supervisory Body's (Bawaslu) statement, and the Relevant Party's statement for the General Election Result Dispute (PHPU) case for prospective members of the DPR, DPRD Provinsi/DPRA, DPRD Kabupaten/Kota/DPRK in the Aceh Special Region Province in the Aceh 2 Electoral District and the Pidie Jaya 1 Electoral District submitted by the National Mandate Party (PAN) represented by Zulkifli Hasan and Eddy Soeparno as Chairman of PAN and Secretary General of PAN.

The trial with case number 153-01-12-01/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was held in Panel Courtroom 3 on Monday (07/05/2024) with the Panel of Judges consisting of Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat accompanied by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.

In this trial, the Respondent provided an explanation regarding the Petitioner's request which in the previous preliminary hearing argued that there was a difference in the vote acquisition of prospective members of the Aceh Provincial People's Representative Council, Aceh 2 Electoral District and prospective members of the Regional People's Representative Council, Pidie Jaya 1 Electoral District.

No Inflation or Reduction of Votes Occurred

In its response, the KPU stated that the petitioner's request was vague or unclear (obscuur libel). Furthermore, in the subject matter of the case, the KPU stated that the petitioner's argument regarding the reduction of the Petitioner's votes and the inflation of votes carried out by the Respondent for the PPP was incorrect. Based on the vote recapitulation, the votes owned by the Petitioner were 24,284 votes and the PPP was 25,348 votes.

“The reduction of the Petitioner's votes and the inflation of the petitioner's votes are incorrect arguments. Based on the recapitulation, the Petitioner's votes are 24,284 votes and the PPP's are 25,348 votes,” said Irfan Yudha Oktara, as the Respondent's legal counsel.

In addition to the dispute with the PPP, the KPU also explained in its response regarding the difference argued by the Petitioner with the Aceh Party. According to the Respondent, there is no difference in votes as stated by the Petitioner.

“There is no difference for the Petitioner with the Aceh Party,” said Irfan Yudha Oktara.

Regarding the answer that has been explained, the Respondent asked the Court to decide in the exception, to accept and grant the Respondent's exception in its entirety. In the subject matter of the case, to reject the petitioner's entire request and declare that Decree of the General Election Commission Number 360 of 2024 is correct.