Denny Indrayana's Lawsuit On Uncle Birin Is Granted, Members Of South Kalimantan Bawaslu Are Hardly Discrete DKPP

Denny Indrayana-Difiriadi Degree (H2D) / ANTARA

JAKARTA - The Honorary Board of Election Administrators (DKPP) partially approved the Haji Denny Indrayana-Difiriadi Derajat (H2D) team's claim regarding the handling of reports at Bawaslu South Kalimantan (Kalsel). Bawaslu member Azhar Ridhanie was given a stern warning.

"Defendant IV (Azhar Ridhanie) was proven to have violated the code of ethics and code of conduct. Defendant IV violated Article 15 letter f, letter g and letter h and Article 16 letter e DKPP Regulation Number 2 of 2017. Imposing a strong warning sanction to Defendant IV Azhar Ridhanie as a member of South Kalimantan Bawaslu, "the DKPP decision was quoted by VOI, Thursday, February 11. .

This lawsuit was filed by Jurkani Haji Denny Indrayana-Difriadi (H2D) legal division against the Head of South Kalimantan Bawaslu Erna Kaspiyah and a number of members of South Kalimantan Bawaslu.

In the main complaint case Number 178-PKE-DKPP / XI / 2020, the defendants, namely the South Kalimantan Bawaslu were suspected of not being professional and having legal certainty in following up on the report number 02 / LP / PG / 22.00 / X / 2020.

Denny Indrayana's lawsuit to the South Kalimantan Bawaslu was submitted on October 28 regarding administrative violations as stipulated in Article 71 paragraph 3 of Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents and Mayors into Law.

On November 3, 2020, the complainant's report was terminated on the pretext that it did not meet the elements of election violations even though it had been supported by strong evidence. The complainant objected to the South Kalimantan Bawaslu Decree which categorizes the administrative violation report as an election crime report.

"It is very clear that written in the section regarding the a quo report is an administrative violation report that should be handled by the South Kalimantan Bawaslu not the Gakkumdu Center," said Denny Indrayana's lawsuit to Bawaslu.

In considering the decision, DKPP considered the complaint of the complainant, Denny Indrayana, arguing that the South Kalimantan Bawaslu defendants were suspected of having violated the code of ethics and code of conduct of the election organizers in their actions.

The defendants were allegedly unprofessional and had no legal certainty in following up the report. The complainant objected to the decision of the defendants who followed up on the a quo report as an election crime. According to the complainant, the defendants should have argued that the actions of the defendants were contrary to Article 11 and Article 15 of DKPP Regulation Number 2 of 2017.

"With regard to the complainant's argument, the fact was revealed that on October 28, 2020, the defendants received a report on the alleged violation of the election with reported Shabirin Noor who is a candidate for incumbent governor," said the DKPP decision.

The reported party, Shabirin alias Uncle Birin, is suspected of using his authority, programs and activities that benefit his position as incumbent in his actions using the social security program, free internet assistance to 24 thousand students of SMK South Kalimantan, rice social assistance with the Ministry of Social Affairs and Bulog.

The complainant said that Uncle Birin had included the tagline "Uncle Birin Moves" which was the tagline for the reported campaign, namely Uncle Birin.

"There is a discrepancy in the analysis of the studies prepared by IV. The analysis section describes the elements of article 71 paragraph 3 of the Election Law and states the fulfillment of the elements of the governor, elements of authority, programs and activities as well as the locus and tempus of the reported events. Meanwhile, with regard to elements of benefit or detriment, "continued DKPP.

DKPP in its decision elaborated the analysis of the 'profitable or detrimental' category and stated that the distribution of internet quota by the reported party was an act that caused injustice to the incumbent candidate's competitors.

But on the other hand, the study actually states that the beneficial or detrimental elements in the a quo report are not fulfilled due to the absence of an advantageous limiting indicator. Likewise, the conclusion of the study which states that both the alleged election crime and the alleged administrative violation do not fulfill the elements, especially the phrase favorable.

"Regarding the discrepancy in the analysis, Defendant IV as the compiler was unable to provide an explanation. Defendant IV as the leading sector should have the responsibility to ensure the assessment of the study and submit an important document at the plenary forum, "continued DKPP.

Defendant IV was proven to have violated the code of ethics and code of conduct. Defendant IV violated Article 15 letter f, letter g and letter h and Article 16 letter e of DKPP Regulation Number 2 of 2017