Jakarta, Hilton News –
The Constitutional Court (MK) stated that it could not accept the application for disputes over the results of the general election (PHPU) or disputes over the election of members of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia for the DKI Jakarta II electoral region (dapil) submitted by PPP.
Judgment number 02-01-17-11/PHPU. The DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was read by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo in a session pronouncing the verdict/decree in the Plenary Session Room of the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Wednesday (22/5).
“Adjudicating, in exeption, granting the respondent’s exception in respect of the petitioner’s application is vague or vague. In the main application, stating the applicant’s application is not acceptable,” Suhartoyo said.
Constitutional Judge Enny Nurbaningsih said the petitioner’s application wrote an error in counting votes for filling the DPR RI candidates in the DKI Jakarta Il electorate, which basically stated that there was a reduction in the applicant’s votes by 6,360 votes and an increase in the Garuda Party’s votes by 6,360 votes.
“However, the applicant did not elaborate further on the locus or at any polling station and at the recapitulation level where the respondent miscounted votes and how there was a reduction or increase in votes or at least in which sub-district there was a vote dispute as masterminded by the applicant,” explained Enny.
“The absence of such a description results in the application being unclear and therefore the Court cannot understand what problems the applicant is really facing,” Enny added.
The Court then considered that the petitioner’s application did not meet the formal requirements of the application as stipulated in Article 75 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 11 paragraph (2) point b.
“So according to the Court, the petitioner’s application is vague or vague so that the respondent’s exception regarding the applicant’s application is vague or vague is reasonable according to law,” said Enny.
In line with the lawsuit in NTT I and II
The Constitutional Court also stated that it could not accept the petition for disputes between members of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia in NTT I and NTT II submitted by PPP.
Judgment No. 93-01-17-19/PHPU. The DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was also read today.
“The Adjudicating, in its exception, rejects the respondent’s exclusion with respect to the authority of the Court and the deadline for filing the petitioner’s application, granting the respondent’s exception with respect to the petitioner’s application vague or vague. In the main application, stating that the applicant’s application cannot be accepted,” Suhartoyo said when reading out the ammar.
Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra explained that the Court did not find at all specifics where the locus of transfer and error in counting votes was made by the respondent.
“Whether legal actions as postulated by the applicant occur in stages at each level of polling stations, villages/villages, sub-districts, and districts sequentially. In this case, the petitioner only described the transfer of PPP votes to the Garuda Party in Dapil NTT I and Dapil NTT II without explaining specifically where the locus of the vote transfer occurred. Matters relating to switching or transferring votes are not specifically or clearly outlined by the Applicant in the petition posita,” Saldi explained.
Saldi explained that the petitioner’s application did not meet the formal requirements as specified in the PHPU settlement procedural law.
Therefore, the petitioner’s application is considered vague or vague.
“Since the petitioner’s application is vague or vague, the respondent’s exclusion regarding the subject matter of the petitioner’s application is vague or vague is well-founded in law,” Saldi added.
(pop/fra)
[Image:HN Video]