Election Result Dispute Petition Falls at Constitutional Court

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The majority of applications for disputes over the results of regional head elections or pilkada submitted to the Constitutional Court have failed midway. Only 13 of the 112 cases that had been read out at the verdict hearing on Tuesday (4/2/2025) morning to afternoon, continued to the further examination stage. The examination of 99 other cases was stopped.

In total until tonight, the Constitutional Court is planned to read out the verdict/ruling for 158 cases out of 310 election result dispute cases submitted to the Constitutional Court. The others will be read out tomorrow (5/2/2025).

The reading of the decisions/decisions of the 158 cases was divided into three trial sessions. In the first session 58 decisions/decisions were read, in the second session 54 decisions/decisions, and in the third session 46 decisions/decisions. Until this news was published, the Constitutional Court was still reading out the decision/decree for the case in the third session or evening session.

In the first trial session or morning session, only six cases out of 58 cases had their decisions read out.

A total of 52 cases had their examinations stopped, either because they were withdrawn (nine cases), dropped because the applicant did not attend the trial (eight cases), could not be accepted because they did not have legal standing (34 cases), and the Constitutional Court did not have the authority to handle the case (1 case).

The six cases that continued to the further evidentiary hearing included the regional election disputes in Tasikmalaya Regency, Magetan Regency, Pesawaran Regency, Mimika Regency, Banjarbaru City, and East Aceh Regency.

Meanwhile, in the second session or afternoon reading session, only seven cases out of 54 cases were declared to be continued to the next hearing. The seven cases include the Pilkada disputes of Bangka Belitung Province, West Bangka Regency, Pasaman Regency, Lamandau Regency, Palopo City, Sabang City, and North Gorontalo Regency.

Thus, of the 112 cases whose decisions/decisions were read out from Monday morning to afternoon, only 13 cases or around 11 percent continued to the next stage.

"The follow-up trial will be held from February 7 to February 17. Each (case) is scheduled, (about) when it is scheduled, will be officially announced by the Constitutional Court," said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

Of the 112 cases whose decisions/decisions were read out from Monday morning to afternoon, only 13 cases or around 11 percent continued to the next stage.

He said, for provincial-level election dispute cases that pass to the advanced evidence stage, the parties (applicant, respondent/KPU, related party/election winner) can submit six witnesses or experts. Regarding the composition of witnesses or experts, it is left to each party to determine.

Meanwhile, for cases of disputes over election results at the district/city level that proceed to the next stage, the parties may submit a maximum of four witnesses or experts, with the determination of the composition of the witnesses and experts submitted being left to each party.

The majority of dispute applications were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court because they did not have legal standing or because the application was unclear/vague or obscure.

The majority of applicants argued that there were structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) violations during the regional election stages. Most argued that there had been violations committed by state civil servants, village heads, school principals or election organizers that benefited one of the candidate pairs.

Several applicants also questioned the violation of Article 71 of the Regional Election Law which prohibits incumbents from transferring or replacing officials within six months before the determination of candidate pairs.

With these arguments, the applicants asked the Constitutional Court to set aside the provisions of Article 158 of the Regional Election Law which regulates the threshold requirements for submitting regional election result disputes to the Constitutional Court which ranges from 0.5 percent to 2 percent of valid votes.

However, in most cases, the Constitutional Court did not find sufficient evidence of TSM violations as alleged by the applicant. Specifically regarding the transfer of officials carried out by the incumbent, the Constitutional Court also found that the action was carried out with written permission from the Minister of Home Affairs. Thus, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's arguments groundless.

In relation to this, the Constitutional Court also stated that there was no reason to postpone the implementation of Article 158 of the Regional Election Law. Because most of the vote differences between the applicant and the winner of the regional election were more than 0.5-2 percent (according to each region), the Constitutional Court also stated that the applicant did not have legal standing so that the application could not be accepted.

In addition, the Constitutional Court found that nine cases (such as the regional election disputes in Bondowoso, Tulungagung, East Halmahera, South Nias, Sikka, Saburaijua, Tolikara, Intanjaya, and Pemantang Siantar City) were registered with the Constitutional Court beyond the deadline for submitting applications regulated in the Regional Election Law. Thus, these applications cannot be accepted.

Apart from the decision not to be accepted, the Constitutional Court also issued decisions for cases that were withdrawn or revoked by the applicant.

Among them, the dispute over the results of the Central Java regional elections, the application for which was withdrawn by the candidate pair for governor and deputy governor of Central Java, Andika Perkasa and Hendar Prihadi, the application for the dispute over the results of the North Sulawesi regional elections, which was withdrawn by the candidate pair Elly Engelbert Lasut and Hanny Joost Pajouw, and several other regions.