JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing with the agenda of listening to the Respondent's answers, the testimony of the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu), and the testimony of the Related Party for the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) member Election Result Dispute (PHPU) case for the Intan Jaya 2 Electoral District (Dapil) which was submitted by Venos Sondegau, a candidate for DPRD member from the Partai Kebangkitan Nusantara (PKN), serial number 1.

The trial with case number 152-02-09-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was held on Monday (06/05/2024) morning in Panel Courtroom 3 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 had previously been read out at the preliminary hearing on Monday (29/4/2024) Afternoon. The Petitioner argued that there was a difference in votes between the election results set by the respondent (General Election Commission) and the correct election results according to the Petitioner.

According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner's vote acquisition should have been 3,378, but according to the results set by the respondent, the petitioner's vote was 1,161. The Petitioner argued that the difference in vote acquisition was caused by the elimination of the Petitioner's votes from two villages, namely Kendetapa Village and Mbamogo Village, totaling 2,217 votes.

The reduction in votes was because the Petitioner's votes were robbed and/or eliminated by members of the District Election Committee (PPD) and members of the Voting Committee (PPS). According to the petitioner, the Petitioner's votes were robbed and/or eliminated, then transferred and added to the votes of other Intan Jaya Regency DPRD member candidates, namely Benyamin Kobogau from PKN serial number 4. Apart from the difference in votes, the Petitioner in his petition also questioned the election implementation process which was not in accordance with the principles of direct, general, free, and secret (luber and jurdi) as mandated by laws and regulations.

MHD. Abduh SAF, as the Respondent's legal representative, responded that the Petitioner did not have legal standing because he did not obtain a recommendation from the leaders of the Partai Kebangkitan Nusantara (PKN). In addition, the Petitioner's request is obscuur libel due to an incorrect mention of Mbamogo village. According to the Respondent's calculations, Venos Sondegau's vote acquisition was 1,161 votes. However, according to the Petitioner, it was 3,378 votes because they obtained it from two villages, namely Kendetapa Village and Mbamogo Village. Even though Mbamogo is in a different District.

“Regarding the Petitioner's vote acquisition, this is incorrect because there is an error in the mention in the application. So this is related to obscuur libel,” said Abduh.

In its petitum, the Respondent requested the Court to grant the Respondent's exception and reject the petitioner's request in the subject matter and requested the Court to declare that KPU Decree Number 360 of 2024 is correct.

Meanwhile, Bawaslu, in its statement, explained that all of the KPU's statements were correct and the same as Bawaslu's statements. Bawaslu also stated that there were no special events regarding this request.

“We from Bawaslu are sufficient, the same as the KPU,” said Markus.