Jakarta, Hilton News –
The Constitutional Court (MK) said it could not accept the application for the results of the general election (PHPU) or the dispute over the West Sumatra I and II electoral district legislative elections (dapil) submitted by the PPP.
Judgment No. 119-01-17-03/PHPU. The DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was delivered by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo in a judgment pronunciation session in the Plenary Session Room of the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Tuesday (21/5).
“Declared, in the exeption, to grant the respondent’s exception with respect to the petitioner’s application to flee. In the main application, stating the applicant’s application is not acceptable,” Suhartoyo said.
PDIP initially sat as a related party in this case. However, PDIP also submitted a request for revocation/withdrawal as a related party. The court accepted the application.
In this case, the General Elections Commission (KPU) as the respondent also filed an exception which in essence considered the posita and petitum of the application to be incompatible.
Constitutional Judge Daniel Yusmic P Foekh said the applicant had also filed a renvoi on April 29, 2024.
Daniel explained that the renvoi essentially omitted the petition related to the dispute over the results of the vote in the West Sumatra Regional Council lI, the deletion of the phrase “and in the West Sumatra Electoral District Il, West Sumatra Province there were a number of votes belonging to the applicant who moved to the PDIP Party,” in point 8 page 4 and the phrase “and the PDIP Party” in point 17 page 7 of the applicant’s application.
He said the court considered that the proposed renvoi had fallen into the category of changing the substance of the petitioner’s application and not on typographical errors or editorial errors alone.
Therefore, the renvoi application is considered to be set aside. Furthermore, Daniel said, the court will assess applications that have been received and registered with the Registrar of the Court.
Daniel explained that the subject matter of the petitioner’s application was to question the transfer of the applicant’s votes to the Garuda Party as many as 5,611 votes which according to the applicant were caused by a counting error made by the respondent in the West Sumatra Dapil I.
“However, the Petitioner did not elaborate further on how the miscalculation occurred. The applicant also did not elaborate in detail at what level and where the locus of the vote movement caused by the miscounting occurred, whether the transfer occurred at the KDP level, PPS level, Regency level or Provincial level,” Daniel explained.
Daniel said, in his application, the applicant actually questioned the results of the vote count in Dapil Sumatera Barat I and Dapil Sumatera Barat II for filling the membership of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia. However, in the posita, the applicant only explained the results of the vote count in Dapil Sumatera Barat I.
He also alluded to the petition filed. Daniel said that in the petition petitum, especially in petitum number 2, the applicant asked for the cancellation of KPU Decision 360/2024 during the 2024 General Election Results for members of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia in the West Sumatra I and West Sumatra II Dapils. However, in petitum number 3 the petitioner only asked to determine the correct number of votes for the filling of members of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia in the West Sumatra Dapil I.
“Such a formulation of petitum shows the inconsistency of the petitioner in formulating the things pleaded. Because, on the one hand, the applicant asked for the cancellation of the determination of the general election results for Dapil Sumatera Barat I and Sumatera Barat II but on the other hand, the applicant only asked for the determination of the correct vote for Dapil Sumatera Barat I only. Moreover, the determination of the general election results for the West Sumatra II Regional Council which was requested to be annulled in the petitum was not described in the petition posita,” said Daniel.
Daniel emphasized that the applicant’s application did not meet the qualifications as referred to in Article 75 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 11 paragraph (2) point b number 4 and number 5 PMK 2 of 2023.
Because, the court considered that the petitioner’s application did not explain how the vote counting error occurred and the applicant also did not elaborate in detail at what level and where the locus of the vote movement caused by the vote counting error occurred, whether the transfer occurred at the KDP level, PPS level, Regency level or Provincial level.
In addition, the petitioner’s application is also considered not to clearly describe the error in the results of the vote count announced by the respondent and the correct counting results according to the applicant and there is a discrepancy between the reasons for the application (posita) and petitum.
“Moreover, the petitioner’s petitum shows the inconsistency between one petitum and another in the petitioner’s formulation of the things pleaded. Therefore, there is no doubt for the Court to declare the respondent’s exclusion to be well-founded in law. Thus, according to the court, the petitioner’s application is obscuur,” Daniel explained.
(pop/fra)
[Image:HN Video]