Risma-Gus Hans's Lawsuit Regarding The East Java Pilkada Ran Aground In The Constitutional Court

Chairman of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo observed the glasses while chairing the trial for the pronunciation of the interim decision (dismissal) for the 2024/ANTARA Pilkada dispute PHOTO/Bayu Pratama S/tom.

The lawsuit against the results of the 2024 East Java Pilkada submitted by the Candidate Pair for Governor and Deputy Governor of East Java Number 3 Tri Rismahar and Zahrul Azhar Asumta (Risma-Gus Hans) ran aground because the Constitutional Court declared the lawsuit unacceptable.

"Declare that the petitioner's application is unacceptable," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo reading out the dismissal case decision Number 265/PHPU.GUB-XXIII/2025 reported by ANTARA, Tuesday, February 4.

The Constitutional Court stated that the arguments proposed by Risma-Gus Hans were not legally justified.

Both of them also do not meet the requirements for the difference in votes to file a regional election dispute lawsuit regulated in Article 158 of Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning Pilkada.

In this case, one of Risma-Gus Hans's arguments is the alleged manipulation of the percentage of votes acquired by candidate pair number 2 Khofifah Indar Parawansa-Emil Elestianto Dardak in Sirekap. Risma-Gus Hans questioned this because the percentage of Khofifah-Emil votes was stable at 58.54 percent.

Regarding the argument, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said, the percentage of votes in Sirekap that are always stable at certain numbers is not impossible to happen. However, this does not necessarily mean that data manipulation has occurred.

In addition to Sirekap based on real data from polling stations (TPS), data that enters the system also cannot be arranged in such a way. In addition, the data contained in Sirekap is also adjusted from calculated data or tiered recapitulation.

Even if there is an anomaly or technical constraints on Sirekap, as long as it cannot be proven that the problem affects the votes acquired by the candidate pairs, it is also not proven that the manipulation is being argued.

Risma-Gus Hans also argued that there was a reduction in votes against him and the addition of Khofifah-Emil's voice.

The argument is attributed to the high voter participation which reaches 90 100 percent of the voter list remains, the discrepancy between the number of gubernatorial and pilbup/pilwakot voters, as well as the vote acquisition of both less than 30 votes and even zero in the number of polling stations.

Regarding the argument, the Court acknowledged that the evidence submitted by Risma-Gus Hans showed that the level of voter participation was very high, there was a discrepancy between the number of gubernatorial and pilbup/pilwako voters at several polling stations, as well as the achievement of both very low votes at several polling stations.

"However, the petitioner cannot convince the Court that this phenomenon occurs against the law. If it does happen, how will the process occur and who will carry out such manipulations?" said Saldi.

Furthermore, the Court also stated that Risma-Gus Hans' argument regarding the distribution of social assistance (bansos) for the Family Hope Program (PKH) which benefits the electability of certain candidate pairs is not legally reasonable.

Saldi said that such a view would only be an assumption unless it was proven by Risma-Gus Hans that the relationship between the distribution of social assistance and the vote acquisition of one of the candidate pairs was proven. It should also be proven by the parties involved and how to use it.

Based on these considerations, the Court argued that there was no reason to rule out the provisions of Article 158 of the Pilkada Law as a formal requirement for Risma-Gus Hans in filing a lawsuit.

If referring to Article 158 of the Pilkada Law, the number of votes difference between Risma-Gus Hans and Khofifah-Emil, as the pair of candidates who won the most votes, should not have been more than 103,663 votes. This figure was obtained from 0.5 percent multiplied by 20,732,592 votes (the total valid votes).

However, in fact, the difference in votes between Risma-Gus Hans and Khofifah-Emil reached 5,449,070. This is because based on the vote count set by the East Java KPU, Risma-Gus Hans received 6,743,095 votes and Khofifah-Emil received 12,192,165 votes.

"The Petitioner has no legal standing to apply," said Saldi.