Constitutional Court, Tuesday (11/11), held the second trial for North Gorontalo, Gorontalo Regency Election. The case No. 31/PHPU-D-VI/2008 was filed by Gorontalo election candidate pair, Thariq Modanggu and Djafar Ismail.

In their initial petition, the main ground for the petition was Decision of North Gorontalo Regional Election Commission No. 37/2008 dated November 2, 2008 about Announcement of Vote Counting Result for Norh Gorontalo Regional Head and Vice 2008.

The Petitioner argued that in the counting process, his party found violation such as that more than one voter were not listed and got the opportunity to vote. This was then reported to the Election Watcher Committee alongwith the request that voting in certain places had to be repeated. Based on the report, the committee had issued recommendation but it was ignored by the Petitionees and still continued the counting result that resulted in wrong number of result.

Based on recapitulation result of the Election Commission, candidate pair number 1, Drs. Hj. Rusli Habibie & Hj. Indra Yasin, SH, MH got 23,108 votes. Petitioner, candidate pair No. 2, attained 23,047 votes. Candidate pair No. 3, Hj. Samsu Tanaiyo & Hj. Muchtar Adam, managed to get 4,428 votes. Candidate pair No. 4, Drs. Hj. Mochtar Darise, M.Si  & Malik Laleno, SE, collected 1,486 votes, and 5th Contestant, Hj. Sutardjo Tui, SE, M.Si & Hj. Moh. Non Pango, SE, had 1,172 votes.

In the early petitum, the Petitioner demanded the Constitutional Court to state that the Decision of the Election Commission regarding the Vote Counting Result is illegal and rescind, ordering Petitionees to repeat the voting in Voting Center I Tudi Village Anggrek District, Voting Center I, II dan IV Ponelo Village Kwandang District, Voting Center II Central Tolinggula Village Tolinggula District, Voting Center I and III Bulalo Village, Kwandang District, Voting Center II and III Molingkapoto Village Kwandang District, and imposing the Petitionee to pay the expenses arising from the case.

Responding to the petitum, Head of Justice Panel Board H. Akil Mokhtar, explained that the Constitutional Court was authorized to settle dispute over election result. The Court did not have any authorities to order the Election Committee to repeat the election. “You have to be able to prove that in those voting centers there were illegal votes that were counted in the process. That will be examined here, so that the Court can make the right decision,” explained Akil, Monday (10/11).

Related to the petitum about trial fee, Akil explained the Petitioner that having a case in the Court was free of charge. “So, there is nothing to pay. The most important thing is justice,” explained Akil.

For that, in the improvement, the Petitioner added the petitum by requesting the Court to state that the result of the recalculation as the correct one. However, according to Related Party No. 1, the additional petitum was against Article 6 of the Regulation of Constitutional Court No. 15/2008 stating that the petitum should contain demand for the Court to state annulment of Petitionees counting result and stating the Petitioner s counting as the correct one. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)

Photo: Doc. MK PR/Denny Feishal

Translated by YOGI DJATNIKA / MK