JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing with the agenda of listening to the Respondent's answers and the testimony of the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) for the General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) case for candidates for members of the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) of East Aceh Regency, Aceh Timur Electoral District (Dapil) 2 submitted by Yanti Anggreyani, S.Pd, a candidate for Member of the DPRK of East Aceh Regency from the National Awakening Party (PKB) number 3.

The trial with case number 161-02-01-01/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was held in Panel 3 Hearing Room on Monday (07/05/2024) with the Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court 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 trial argued that there had been an inflation of votes which resulted in a difference between the votes determined by the Respondent and the correct votes according to the Petitioner.

In its response, the KPU stated that the Petitioner's application did not include or complete a written letter of approval from the chairman and secretary general of the Political Party concerned.

In the subject matter of the case, the Respondent stated that the reduction in the Petitioner's votes in Peureulak District by 2 votes was incorrect because based on the Peureulak District Result Model D Form, the Petitioner's votes in Peureulak District, East Aceh Regency Dapil 2 were 75 votes.

Furthermore, the claim regarding the addition of 429 votes for Azhari, a Candidate for Member of the East Aceh Regency People's Representative Council Dapil 2 who is registered at number 5 in Peureulak District, is unfounded. According to data recorded in the Peureulak District Result Model D Form, East Aceh Regency Dapil 2, the valid number of votes for the Respondent is 616 votes.

“the addition of votes at number 5 in the name of Azhari, a Candidate for Member of the DPR of East Aceh Regency Dapil 2 in Peureulak District by 429 votes is incorrect because based on the Peureulak District Result Model D Form, East Aceh Regency Dapil 2, the Respondent's votes were 616 votes,” said Adika Gautama as the Respondent's attorney.

Furthermore, the Petitioner's argument regarding the reduction in votes for the National Awakening Party (PKB) political party in Peureulak District by 137 votes is incorrect because based on the Peureulak District Result Model D Form, East Aceh Regency Dapil 2 was 92 votes.

Regarding the answers that have been explained, the Respondent requested 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, reject all of the petitioner's requests and state that the Decree of the General Election Commission Number 360 of 2024 is correct.

Bawaslu, in its statement, explained that the results of the supervision of the Peureulak District Panwaslu during the recapitulation of votes at the sub-district level showed that one of the witnesses from the PKB Party raised an objection. The witness felt that the recapitulation results did not match the results they recapitulated according to the C Copy. The PPK then informed the witness to fill out the Witness Objection Form. However, the sub-district Panwaslu did not receive an objection form from the witness.

Furthermore, Safwani, a representative from Bawaslu, stated that the East Aceh Regency Panwaslih on February 28, 2024 had received and processed the Report with Registration Number: 007/Reg/LP/PUKab/01.1511.11/2024, which was reported by Mhd Yunan. The report basically accused the PPK of Peureulak District and the Panwaslu of Peureulak District of allegedly inflating or transferring the number of votes to candidate number 5 in the name of Azhari from the PKB Party. Based on the initial review, the report met the formal and material requirements. After being discussed by the Gakkumdu Center, the report was declared not to meet the elements of an election crime and then a status was issued dated March 26, 2024.

“There was a report, but when it was discussed at Gakkumdu, it did not meet the elements of a crime,” said Safwani.