JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing with the agenda of listening to the Respondent's answers, the Election Supervisory Body's (Bawaslu) statement, and the Relevant Party's statement for the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) member Election Result Dispute (PHPU) case, Central Papua Electoral District (Dapil) 2, filed by Bartolimeus Mirip, a DPRD member candidate from the Democratic Party with ballot number 2.

The hearing with case number 281-02-14-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was held in Panel Courtroom 3 on Monday (07/05/2024) with the Panel of Judges consisting of Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat accompanied by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.

In this hearing, the Respondent provided an explanation regarding the Petitioner's request, which in the previous preliminary hearing argued that there was alleged manipulation of votes in the vote count. The Petitioner claimed to have evidence of obtaining 24,870 votes. However, the official result from the General Election Commission (KPU) showed that his votes were zero.

The KPU in its response stated that the petitioner did not have legal standing because his petition was not accompanied by a written letter of approval from the chairman and secretary-general of the Democratic Party.

“The petitioner did not get approval from the political party,” said Ginetor M. Yacub Ariwei as the Respondent's legal counsel.

Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the Petitioner's argument was about the robbery, removal, or reduction of votes by PPD (District Election Committee) members and PPS (Polling Committee) members. This argument is a dispute between political parties that falls within the realm of political party lawsuits.

The KPU also denied the Petitioner's claim regarding the Loss of the Petitioner's Votes in (3) three Districts totaling 24,870, because the votes were robbed by unscrupulous members of the PPD and members of the Polling Station Committee.

Based on the explained answers, the Respondent requested the Court to decide, in the exception, to grant the Respondent's exception in its entirety, in the subject matter, to reject the Petitioner's petition in its entirety and to declare the Decree of the General Election Commission Number 360 of 2024 as correct.

Bawaslu, in its statement, also explained that based on the results of Bawaslu's supervision in Intan Jaya Regency in accordance with the D.Hasil of Intan Jaya Regency in each District, the Petitioner's votes were zero.

“The results of Bawaslu's supervision in Intan Jaya Regency in accordance with the D.Hasil of Intan Jaya Regency in each District, the Petitioner's votes were zero,” said Markus Madrid.

The Relevant Party, the National Mandate Party, represented by its Legal Counsel Anggara Suwahju, stated that in the exception, according to the Relevant Party, the Petitioner does not have legal standing as a Petitioner because he did not obtain approval from the chairman and secretary-general of the Petitioner's party.

Furthermore, the Relevant Party stated that the petitioner's petition was unclear because the petitioner did not explain where the petitioner's votes were lost. Thus, the petitioner's petition was vague and drawn up irregularly.

Based on the Relevant Party's statement, Anggra stated that the Relevant Party requested the Court to decide, in the exception, to grant the Relevant Party's exception in its entirety, in the subject matter, to reject the Petitioner's petition in its entirety and to declare the Decree of the General Election Commission Number 360 of 2024 as correct.