JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a Preliminary Hearing for the General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) for the DPR-DPRD on Thursday (2/5/2024) afternoon. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.

The hearing, held in Panel 3 Hearing Room of the Constitutional Court, handled the case with number 230-01-01-06/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024. This case was filed by the National Awakening Party (PKB), represented by H. A. Muhaimin Iskandar as Chairman and Hasanuddin Wahid as Secretary General. This hearing relates to the election of Provincial/Regency/City DPRD in South Sumatra Province, specifically the Lahat 5 Electoral District (Dapil), Palembang City 6 Dapil, and South Sumatra 9 Dapil. The object of the petition is the General Election Commission (KPU) Decree Number 360 of 2024.

In the trial, the petitioner argued that there was a difference in the vote acquisition between the petitioner's data and the respondent's (KPU) version for several parties in the Electoral District (Dapil) in South Sumatra Province.

Lahat Regency Electoral District 5

The petitioner questioned the results of filling the seats of members of the Lahat Regency DPRD, Lahat Regency Electoral District 5. According to the petitioner, the Gerindra Party should have obtained 4,072 votes, but the respondent determined it to be 4,023 votes. Meanwhile, according to the petitioner, PDI-Perjuangan should have obtained 1,238 votes, but the respondent determined it to be 1,217 votes. Furthermore, the petitioner also questioned the difference in votes for the National Mandate Party, which according to the petitioner should have obtained 3,434 votes, but the respondent determined it to be 3,504 votes.

According to the petitioner, the difference in vote acquisition above was due to the addition of votes by the respondent to the National Mandate Party by 70 votes and the reduction by the respondent for the Gerindra Party and PDI-Perjuangan by 49 and 21 votes respectively.

“There were additions and reductions in votes, namely in the Gerindra Party, PDI-Perjuangan, and the National Mandate Party. According to the respondent, the Gerindra Party has a figure of 4,023, while the figure according to the petitioner is 4,072, which means there is a reduction with a difference of 49. Meanwhile, in the PDI-P Party, the figure according to the respondent is 1,217, while the figure according to the petitioner is 1,238. There is a reduction of 21. Next, from the National Mandate Party, according to the respondent is 3,504, while according to the petitioner is 3,434. There is an addition,” said Muhammad Athoilah, as the Petitioner's Attorney.

Palembang City Electoral District 6

In addition to questioning the acquisition of votes for filling the candidate members of the Lahat Regency DPRD, Lahat Regency Electoral District 5, the petitioner in his petition also questioned the difference in votes for the acquisition of seats for candidate members of the Palembang City DPRD in the Palembang City Electoral District 6. According to the petitioner, in Electoral District 6, the Petitioner's Party should have had 8,721 votes from the 8,765 votes determined by the respondent. Meanwhile, for the PDI-P Party, it should have obtained 8,589 votes from the 9,044 votes determined by the respondent. Finally, the petitioner mentioned that for the NasDem Party, it should have obtained 28,335 votes from the 28,110 votes determined by the respondent.

“For PKB, according to the respondent is 8,765, according to the petitioner is 8,721, a difference of 44 votes. Secondly, PDI-Perjuangan according to the respondent is 9,044 votes, according to the petitioner is 8,589 votes, a difference of 456 votes. Thirdly, the NasDem Party, according to the respondent's version is 28,110 votes and the petitioner is 28,335 votes, a difference of 225 votes,” revealed Amril, as the Petitioner's Attorney.

According to the petitioner, the difference in vote acquisition above was due to the addition of votes for PDI-Perjuangan which caused a reduction in votes for NasDem Party Candidate No. 1 in the name of Ali Subri.

“This difference in votes is due to the transfer of votes from the NasDem Party Candidate, Ali Subri, to the PDI-Perjuangan Party,” said Amril.

South Sumatra Electoral District 9

Finally, in his petition, the petitioner questioned the acquisition of votes for filling members of the Provincial DPRD, South Sumatra Electoral District 9. According to the petitioner, in the South Sumatra Electoral District 9, the vote acquisition for the Nusantara Awakening Party should have been 31,728 votes from the 32,240 votes determined by the respondent. According to the petitioner, if the votes of the National Awakening Party (PKB) and the votes of the Nusantara Awakening Party (PKN) are calculated in their entirety according to C. Hasil Pleno, then it is clear and evident that the vote acquisition of the National Awakening Party (PKB) – amounting to 31,832 votes – exceeds the vote acquisition of the Nusantara Awakening Party (PKN) by 104 votes.

“That the vote acquisition according to the respondent, one National Awakening Party is 31,832 votes and the Nusantara Awakening Party is 32,240 votes, that according to the respondent the vote acquisition of the Nusantara Awakening Party exceeds the votes of the National Awakening Party by a difference of 408 votes. The correct vote acquisition according to the petitioner is the National Awakening Party 31,832 and the Nusantara Awakening Party 31,728 votes,” said Marta Dinata as the Petitioner's Attorney.

The petitioner suspects that this problem arose from the vote count by the District Election Committee (PPK) of Keluang District, Musi Banyuasin Regency, South Sumatra Province. The PPK of Keluang District is suspected of having changed the vote acquisition results by adding (inflating) them to the Nusantara Awakening Party (PKN). As a result, the D. Hasil Kecamatan is not in accordance with the C. Hasil Pleno and C. Hasil Salinan.

Based on the issues in the 3 Electoral Districts that have been conveyed by the petitioner, in his petition the petitioner asks the Constitutional Court to grant his petition by canceling the decision of the General Election Commission Number 360 of 2024 and determining the vote acquisition for the 3 Electoral Districts in question with the correct vote acquisition according to the petitioner.