JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – Witnesses from the National Mandate Party (PAN) revealed alleged vote inflation for the Aceh Party and the United Development Party (PPP) in the Aceh Electoral District 2 and the Pidie Jaya Electoral District 1. This statement was made in the continuation of the General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) trial in Panel 3, Building 1 of the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (28/05/2024). The trial was led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih. This case is numbered 153-01-12-01/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 and was filed by PAN, represented by Chairman Zulkifli Hasan and Secretary General Eddy Soeparno.

Testimony of PAN Mandate Witnesses in the Election Recapitulation Process

Muhazir, a mandate witness from the KembangTanjung District, stated that no projector was used during the recapitulation in his district, so they could not see the sirekap. The copying of D-Results was also delayed for days, causing Muhazir not to sign the sub-district level recapitulation results. After seeing the D-Results, there was an increase in votes for PPP. There was a mismatch between the C-Results and D-Results, where in the C-Results, PAN obtained 1,126 votes and PPP 1,276 votes, while in the D-Results, PPP obtained 1,309 votes and PAN 1,276 votes.

Furthermore, Andaliana ABDR, a PAN mandate witness in Tangse District, revealed that during the recapitulation, witnesses were only allowed to see their own party's votes and were not allowed to see other parties' votes. When comparing the C-Results and D-Results, Andaliana found that PPP's votes increased from 770 votes in the C-Results to 1,280 votes in the D-Results. In addition, no projector was used in Tangse District, and the PPK only read out the results without allowing them to record other parties' votes. Although PAN signed the recapitulation results, it was not Andaliana who signed, but her friend Asna.

Meanwhile, Muhammad Novan, a PAN mandate witness in Ulim District and Pidie Jaya Regency, stated that some of the vote counting in Ulim District did not follow the applicable rules. "Some of the vote counting in Ulim District did not follow the rules," he said. The PPK read the copy letter not from the sealed box but from the copy of the witness present. According to Novan, the D-Results were not given immediately, but only four days later. He also added that witnesses were not allowed to see the votes of other parties. Novan found a difference in votes between the C-Results and D-Results for the Aceh Party, with an increase of 1,020 votes in the D-Results. He had filed a protest with the PPK and reported it to Panwascam, but it was ignored. Novan also protested at the regency level, but no improvements were made. He did not sign the recapitulation results in the sub-district or Pidie Jaya regency and filled out a special incident form.

In another sub-district, Reza Zulfan, a PAN mandate witness in Meureudu District, stated that in the sub-district level recapitulation, the ballot box was not opened and the C-Plano was not shown. "I am a mandate witness in Meureudu District," he said. The C-Copy was only read by the PPK and poured into the D-Results. Reza found a difference between the D-Results and C-Results, where PAN obtained 1,105 votes in the C-Results, while the Aceh Party obtained 6,036 votes. In the D-Results, the Aceh Party received 6,867 votes, while PAN remained at 1,105. Reza did not sign the recapitulation results and was not allowed to see the C-Results of other parties. The PPK said that Reza was asked to sue the KIP. Reza could not pour the incident into a special incident because the printer was broken, and when he returned the next day, he did not find any PPK members at the location.

The last Applicant Witness, Mahlil, secretary of PAN Pidie Jaya and reporting witness at Bawaslu Pidie Jaya, reported violations of the recapitulation procedure and vote inflation in Ulim and Meureudu Districts. "I am the secretary of PAN Pidie Jaya and also a reporting witness at Bawaslu Pidie Jaya," he said. Bawaslu decided that the reported parties in the two sub-districts were guilty and reprimanded and ordered improvements to the mechanism and procedure. However, in the verdict hearing, three reported parties were not present. Mahlil said that no corrections had been made regarding the matter. He also added that there were problems in the DPT, where there was the use of remaining ballots, while the D-Results had a lot of vote inflation that did not match the C-Results.

KPU Witness

The KPU through its witness Edi Iwan Putra, PPK of Sakti District, testified regarding the vote acquisition in several TPS in his district. In TPS 1 Belangkumot, neither PAN nor PPP obtained votes. In TPS Dayah Kampung Pisang, PAN obtained 11 votes and PPP obtained 24 votes. Meanwhile, in TPS Desa Lingkuk, PAN obtained 17 votes and PPP 5 votes.

In other areas, Aminah, PPK in Ulim District, explained the recapitulation process at the sub-district level. She stated that the recapitulation was carried out by comparing the C-Results taken from the sealed box assisted by the PPS, as well as comparing the C-Results held by the witnesses and the C-Plano affixed to the announcement board. "Regarding the sirekap, it has been shown on the projector. There were no objections from the witnesses," said Aminah. According to her, the vote acquisition for DPRK in Ulim District was PAN with 719 votes and the Aceh Party with 6,117 votes, which were the same between the C-Results and D-Results. Ulim District consists of 32 villages with 52 TPS.

Meanwhile, Nur Raudhah, PPK in Meruah District, Pidie Jaya Regency, testified that during the recapitulation at the sub-district level there were no objections or objections, including from PAN who also signed the recapitulation results. According to Nur Raudhah, the vote acquisition for PAN was 394 votes, while the Aceh Party obtained 4,048 votes.

Overall, Azharuddin, a member of KIP Pidie, Division of Law and Supervision, provided details of vote acquisition in various sub-districts in Pidie:

  • Indrajaya District: PAN obtained 1,249 votes, PPP obtained 840 votes.
  • Kemala District: PAN 412 votes, PPP 452 votes.
  • Sakti District: PAN 627 votes, PPP 689 votes.
  • Simpang Tiga District: PAN 2,002 votes, PPP 360 votes.
  • Tangse District: PAN 736 votes, PPP 1,280 votes.
  • Kembang Tanjong District: PAN 1,126 votes, PPP 1,309 votes.
  • Muaratiga District: PAN 582 votes, PPP 1,051 votes.
  • Mane District: PAN 75 votes, PPP 633 votes.

Azharuddin stated that there were no objections, including from witnesses from the applicant (PAN).

The KPU's last witness, Darkasyi Abdul Hamid, a member of KIP Pidie Jaya, testified that in Pidie Jaya there were no special events during the recapitulation process. "There were no special events," he said.

Munawarsyah, an expert presented by the related party PPP, provided an explanation regarding the administration of vote counting results at polling stations based on applicable regulations. Munawarsyah, who is a former member of KIP Aceh, referred to PKPU No. 25 of 2023 and Technical Guidelines Number 66 of 2024 in his statement. According to Munawarsyah, the administration of vote counting results at polling stations is regulated in detail in these regulations. Recording is carried out after the voting process is complete and the results are entered into the C-Result form at each level of election, including the DPRA Model C-Result for DPRA elections. The aim is to ensure that the vote counting results match the ballots used. Munawarsyah emphasized the importance of the principle of transparency in elections. Therefore, the KPU provides space for parties present at the polling station to document the C-Results for each election. This is intended to maintain public trust in the public process of the election.

According to Munawarsyah, in this case, the respondent has correctly implemented the technical guidelines, as evidenced by the absence of reported special events. He also stated that the argument for reducing the applicant's votes in the Pidie and Pidie Jaya regencies and inflating the votes of related parties (PPP) should have been resolved by submitting witness objections at each level of recapitulation for resolution by the PPK. "Thus, the argument for reducing votes can be shown at which polling station the vote reduction occurred," said Munawarsyah.

Marhaban, a mandated witness from PPP at the Pidie Jaya Regency level, testified regarding the vote recapitulation process at the regency level. According to Marhaban, the recapitulation process ran smoothly without any objections or special notes. "The recapitulation process ran smoothly," said Marhaban. He explained that PAN's votes in Pidie Jaya obtained 9,162 votes, while PPP obtained 10,992 votes. Marhaban also added that there were no problems with other local parties, only PAN did not sign the regency-level recapitulation and did not provide any special event notes.

Meanwhile, Zuhri, a mandated PPP witness in Pidie Regency, also gave similar testimony. According to Zuhri, out of 24 parties, all signed the recapitulation results, except PAN. "The recapitulation at the regency level also ran smoothly without any objections from any party," said Zuhri. He explained that PPP's votes in Pidie Regency reached 14,356 votes, while PAN obtained 15,122 votes, which is the same as the D-Result at the sub-district level.

With this testimony, both Marhaban and Zuhri confirmed that the recapitulation process at the regency level proceeded without significant obstacles and showed consistent vote acquisition figures with the results at the sub-district level.

M. Jafar, a mandated witness from Partai Aceh in Meredu District, provided information regarding the suitability of the vote recapitulation results. According to Jafar, the vote acquisition on the C-Result and D-Result was appropriate or matched. "It's appropriate, Your Honor," said Jafar. He explained that PAN obtained 1,105 votes and Partai Aceh obtained 6,867 votes, where these results were consistent on the C-Result and D-Result.

In addition to bringing in witnesses who were mandated witnesses from his party, the Related Party Partai Aceh also presented Azwar Zulhaq, a mandated witness from PDIP in Ulin District. He stated that no objections were raised during the recapitulation process in Ulin District, even though the witness from the applicant did not sign the results. "There were no objections, but no signature," said Azwar. He mentioned that Partai Aceh obtained 6,117 votes, while he did not know the vote acquisition of PAN.

Finally, Muchayat Syah, a mandated witness from Partai Golkar in Meradua District, testified regarding the recapitulation process which ran in an orderly and safe manner in the area. Muchayat mentioned that in Meradua District there were 19 villages with 38 polling stations. "The plenary ran safely and completely," said Muchayat. He explained that Partai Aceh obtained 4,048 votes, while PAN obtained 394 votes.

With this testimony, Jafar, Azwar, and Muchayat provided an overview that the recapitulation process in their respective sub-districts ran smoothly and according to the expected results. This shows that there were no significant obstacles in the recapitulation process in these sub-districts.

Bawaslu's Statement Regarding the Election Recapitulation Decision

Fajri, a representative from Bawaslu, provided information regarding the decision related to the vote recapitulation in Pidie Jaya Regency. According to Fajri, the Bawaslu decision for Pidie Jaya Regency is specifically for the district level DPRK, not for the provincial level DPR. "Meanwhile, for DPRA, there were no reports or objections from the sub-district to the district level," said Fajri.

Thus, there were no complaints or reports related to DPRA in Pidie Jaya. Fajri also explained regarding the Bawaslu Pidie Jaya decision number 002 which stated that reported parties 1, 2, and 3 were guilty and ordered administrative improvements. After that, KIP submitted a correction request to Bawaslu RI, and the Bawaslu RI decision gave a warning to reported parties 1, 2, and 3 not to repeat the error. "The decisions for Meredu and Ulim have not been implemented," added Fajri, explaining that there are decisions that have not yet been implemented regarding these sub-districts.