KPU: Until The Last Day Of The Constitutional Court Session, No One Had A Problem With The Difference In The Achievement Of Votes

KPU Chairman Hasyim Asy'ari/ANTARA PHOTO/AKBAR NUGROHO GUMAY)

Chairman of the General Election Commission (KPU) Hasyim Asy'ari said that until the last day of the trial of the Presidential Election Result Dispute (PHPU) case, his party did not find any disputed final votes.

In fact, he said, in the Election Law Number 7 of 2017 Article 473, the name of the dispute was determined as a Dispute over General Election Results (PHPU). If the results are in the form of results, then what the applicant will file against the respondent is the vote acquisition of the election results nationally.

"Until today's last examination, there should be no problem with my voice at the polling station, but written by the KPU, nothing," said Hasyim after the follow-up hearing of the presidential election PHPU case, Friday, April 5.

He also emphasized that Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution has been argued that pairs of presidential and vice presidential candidates to be determined as winners must get a vote of more than 50 percent of the total national valid votes and the spread of the victory of more than a number of provinces in Indonesia with 20 percent of the votes.

Thus, the determinant of the election of the candidates is based on the acquisition of votes. He also questioned why the applicant did not file a argument regarding the difference in votes which should be the main lawsuit in the PHPU.

Hasyim assessed that the Constitutional Court Judge was more concerned with the facts presented in the trial than with information from outside the trial.

The KPU submitted a number of pieces of evidence related to the vote acquisition in the trial, including the D Result form at the sub-district and district level.

His party also provided information regarding whether or not there was a difference in the votes in the form, whether there was an objection or not, and also the witness' signature. Hasyim emphasized that it was the KPU's way of speaking at trial.

"We are sure that the Constitutional Court Judge will definitely consider what is being argued and what is proven by each party, including what is answered by the KPU as the respondent and what evidence is submitted by the KPU," he concluded.