JAKARTA, LEGAL LITERACY – The General Election Commission (KPU) stated that the petitioner, Jois Kambu, S.E., does not have a legal standing because he did not obtain approval or recommendation from the Golkar Party. This was conveyed by KPU as the Respondent in the hearing of the General Election Dispute (PHPU) chaired by Constitutional Judge Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Judges Anwar Usman and Enny Nurbaningsih. This answer is a response to the petition filed by Jois Kambu, candidate for the provincial DPRD member from Golkar Party Number 1 for Southwest West Papua Election District 6.
“In accordance with the provisions of Ministerial Decree No. 2 of 2023, the clear and real requirement to file a petition to the Constitutional Court is the existence of a party recommendation. During the session on April 30, 2024, the Petitioner stated that he has not yet received the party’s approval or recommendation,” revealed Andhika Hendra Septian, Legal Counsel for the Respondent during the session held in Panel Room 3 on Wednesday (05/08/2024).
In response to the explanation provided, the Respondent requests the Court in the preliminary objections to accept and grant all of the Respondent’s objections, and in the main case to deny all the Petitioner’s requests and affirm the correctness of the General Election Commission’s Decision Number 360 of 2024.
Besides KPU and Bawaslu, the Related Party, Otis, stated in his testimony that he previously had a recommendation from the party. However, due to orders from the Chairman and the Secretary General, the recommendation was revoked. As a result, the Related Party now lacks a recommendation, just like the Petitioner.
“Previously, the Related Party had a recommendation from the Party. However, following directions from the Chairman and Secretary General, the recommendation was revoked, so currently, the Related Party does not have a recommendation, just like the Petitioner,” revealed Previously, in the preliminary session, the Petitioner claimed there was an inflation of votes for a fellow party candidate, Ortis Fernando Sagrim.
According to the Petitioner, Ortis Fernando Sagrim should have only received 4,320 votes, but by the Respondent (General Election Commission) a total of 4,794 votes were determined. Meanwhile, the Petitioner, who should have received 4,342 votes, was only determined by the Respondent to have obtained 4,106 votes. In his petitum, the Petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to grant all of the Petitioner’s requests, cancel the General Election Commission’s Decision Number 360 of 2024, and establish the vote count for the Petitioner as per the amount deemed correct by the Petitioner.
