“According to our data, the Petitioner's votes are zero,” said Hasbullah Alimudin Hakim.

In its petitum, the Respondent requested the Court to grant the Respondent's exception and reject the Petitioner's petition in the main case, and requested the Court to declare that KPU Decree Number 360 of 2024 is correct.

Meanwhile, Bawaslu, in its statement, explained that what was explained by the KPU Respondent was correct and Bawaslu agreed with it.

“The Respondent's statement is correct, Your Honor, we agree. Regarding the incidents, such as the petitions in other Intan Jaya districts, it is the same, Your Honor,” said the Bawaslu representative.

Meanwhile, the Relevant Party, the National Mandate Party (PAN), also provided an explanation regarding this case. Azham Idham, as the legal counsel for the Relevant Party, mentioned that the Petitioner does not have legal standing legal standing because he did not obtain a recommendation from the chairman and secretary-general of the Petitioner's party. In addition, the Respondent mentioned that the Petitioner's petition is obscuur libel because he did not obtain a recommendation from the chairman and secretary-general of the Petitioner's party. In addition, the Respondent mentioned that the Petitioner's petition is or vague because the petitioner argued about 3 districts, but did not explain the details of which TPS the vote transfer occurred in. “In the Exception, Your Honor, the Petitioner, as acknowledged in the preliminary hearing, did not obtain a recommendation, so he does not have legal standing. His petition is also vague or