JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – The General Elections Commission (KPU) stated that PDI-P should have disputed the election result disputes related to vote acquisition, not election process disputes or administrative violations. This was conveyed by the KPU as the respondent in a hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih for case Number 170-01-03-26/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 submitted by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) regarding the filling of candidates for members of the Palu City DPRD in the Palu City Electoral District (Dapil) 4, as well as the filling of candidates for members of the Donggala Regency DPRD in the Donggala Regency Electoral District (Dapil) 4, Central Sulawesi Province.

“The arguments outlined by the petitioner are arguments that are not related to disputes over election results, but rather are descriptions of alleged administrative violations of the election. Therefore, as stipulated in Article 460 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, administrative violations of elections include violations of the procedures, or mechanisms related to the administration of election implementation in each stage of election administration,” said Hanter Oriko Siregar, Legal Counsel for the respondent at a hearing held in Panel Courtroom 3, Tuesday (14/05/2024).

KPU explained that none of the petitioner's arguments clearly explain and elaborate on the errors in the vote count that had been determined by the KPU at which polling station or at what level the petitioner's votes had a discrepancy or difference. The petitioner also did not elaborate and include the correct vote acquisition according to the petitioner as regulated in Constitutional Court Regulation Number 2 of 2018. Therefore, according to the KPU, the petition of the petitioner does not meet the requirements to be submitted to the Constitutional Court as stated in the provisions of Article 75, Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court, Jo Article 9 paragraph (1) Letter b numbers 4 and 5 Constitutional Court Regulation Number 2 of 2018.

“That none of the arguments of the petitioner clearly explain and elaborate on the errors in the vote count that was determined by the respondent at which polling station or at what level the petitioner's votes had a discrepancy or difference. The petitioner also does not elaborate and include the correct vote acquisition according to the petitioner as stipulated in PMK Number 2 of 2018, Article 9 paragraph (1) letter b numbers 4 and 5,” said Hanter.