JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – A witness from the Nanggroe Aceh Party mentioned the inflation of votes in three sub-districts for the United Development Party in the Aceh Timur Electoral District 4. This testimony was delivered in the continuation of the General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) trial in Panel 3, Building 1 of the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (29/05/2024). The trial was led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih. The case registered with number 105-01-18-01/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was filed by the Nanggroe Aceh Party (PNA) represented by Irwandy Yufus as Chairman of PNA and Miswar Fuady as Secretary General of the PNA DPP for filling the candidate members of the Aceh Timur DPRK in the Aceh Timur Electoral District 4.

The Applicant's witness, Sofyan, stated that in Pante Bidari Subdistrict and Madat Subdistrict there were differences between C-Results and D-Results, where there was an increase in votes for the United Development Party (PPP). "There is a difference between C-Results and D-Results in Pante Bidari Subdistrict and Madat Subdistrict," he said. However, Witness Sofyan did not know the detailed amount regarding the difference or addition.

Witness Hawin Halaina, who was a mandate witness from PNA for the district-level recapitulation, explained that PNA did not approve and sign the recapitulation Minutes at the district level. "I did not approve and sign the recapitulation results at the district level, Your Honor, it is not the same as the Respondent's statement in the previous trial," he said. Hawin also mentioned that he did not sign because there were objections in the district-level recapitulation where the errors occurred from the sub-district level but had not been corrected at the district level.

Furthermore, the Applicant also presented witness M. Ikrar, who is a recapitulation operator from PNA in Dapil 4 (Pante Bidari, Madat, and Simpang Ulim Subdistricts). The witness explained that there had been an addition or inflation of votes for PPP in three sub-districts and a reduction of votes for PNA in one sub-district. In Pante Bidari Subdistrict, the number of valid votes based on C-Results for PPP was 735 votes, but in D-Results it became 912 votes. In Madat Subdistrict, the number of valid votes based on C-Results for PPP was 231 votes, but in D-Results it became 252 votes. In Simpang Ulim Subdistrict, the number of valid votes for PPP based on C-Results was 1461 votes, but based on D-Results it changed to 1462 votes.

On the other hand, the witness mentioned that in Pante Bidari Subdistrict, PNA's votes should have been 582 votes based on C-Results, but in D-Results it became 538 votes. The witness also mentioned that the mandate witness in Pante Bidari from PNA had been given the mandate to file an objection, but the witness did not carry out the mandate and did not file an objection/rebuttal. "I have conveyed to the mandate witness from PNA at the sub-district level to file a rebuttal, but the PNA mandate witness was not trustworthy so he did not file a rebuttal," said M. Ikrar.

KPU Witness, Budi Mirza, mentioned that he did not know or forgot about the PPP and PNA vote acquisition in C-Results, while only knowing D-Results. "I forgot Your Honor C-Results, there are D-Results," he said. Meanwhile, KPU witness, Marwan, mentioned that there were no problems during the recapitulation, but the PNA witness did not sign. "PNA did not sign, but there were no objections from the witness, Your Honor," he said.

In Madat Subdistrict, KPU Witness, Amiruddin, mentioned that C-Plano had been displayed during the recapitulation in Madat Subdistrict, all witnesses including witnesses from PNA and PPP signed and there were no objections. "Everyone signed and there were no objections, Your Honor," he said. In Simpang Ulim Subdistrict, KPU Witness, Abu Bakar, stated that the recapitulation had been carried out in accordance with the provisions. "We have carried out all stages in accordance with the provisions," he said.

PPP, which is also a related party in this case, presented witness Mukhlis, who was a witness at TPS Madat 4 and Madat Subdistrict. He explained that PPP's votes in Madat Subdistrict were 252 votes, while at TPS Madat 4 he did not get any votes. "PPP's votes in Madat Subdistrict were 252, while at my TPS it was zero votes," he said. Furthermore, Mukhlis mentioned that PNA and PPP had also signed and approved the recapitulation results at the Madat Subdistrict level and the PPK had given time for the witnesses to carry out checks.

The related party also presented Zamzami, a KPPS officer in Pante Rambong Village. The witness explained that there were no problems and no objections. "I am a KPPS officer in Pante Rambong Village, there are no problems and no objections, Your Honor," he said.

Previously, in the preliminary hearing, the Applicant claimed that there were differences in the number of votes between himself and the United Development Party (PPP) according to the Applicant's and Respondent's versions. Based on the arguments presented, the Applicant requested the Court to grant all of the Applicant's requests, annul the General Election Commission Decree Number 360 of 2024, and order the General Election Commission to conduct a recount of ballots in Pante Bidari Subdistrict, Madat Subdistrict, and Simpang Ulim Subdistrict in the Aceh Timur Electoral District 4, or determine the results of the vote acquisition deemed correct by the Applicant.