Constitutional Court held a trial on the dispute over Wajo, South Sulawesi Election result, Monday (17/11), at the Plenary Court Room. The case was filed by candidate for Regent and Vice for Wajo Regency H. Andi Asmidin and Drs.H. Mohammad Ridwan against Wajo Election Commission.

In the trial lasted until late 22:45 WIB, Legal Counsel of Wajo Election Commission, Ridwan Djoni Silamma, SH. convinced the Board of Constitutional Justice that the Petitioners was mistaken concerning the object of the dispute. ”The Petitioners argument in this case should be declared as error in objecto,” exclaimed Ridwan.

This statement were triggered by the Petitioners questioning the Decree form Wajo Election Commission No.159/P.KWK-WO/XI/2008 dated November 4, 2008 about the transcript of proceeding from the Plenary Session scheduled to announce elected candidate. Actually, according to article 106 paragraph 2 of Act on Regional Election, things to be used as object of the claim was the recapitulation result of the Election that can influence the election of a candidate which, in this case, was put in the Decree of Wajo Election Commission No.158/P.KWK-WO/XI/2008.

”The Petitioners claims are totally far from the formal requirements. Hence, they deserve to be declared as unacceptable,” concluded Ridwan at the end of his rebuttal against the Petitioners claims.

The trial also heard information from 18 witnesses, 9 people each from both the Petitioners and the Petitionees. Generally, the ninth witnesses explained their discomfort during the election process. The discomfort then created indication of violation in Electoral Principles; and hence influenced the recapitulation process. “Because of that, we plead the Board to do a recounting, especially to the votes considered illegal that caused some loss to the Petitionees,” requested Petitioners Legal Counsel, Sahala Siahaan,S.H.

Responding to that, Head of Panel Board of Constitutional Justice, A. Mukhtie Fadjar, explained that the tasks of the Constitutional Court as the guardian of the constitution and democracy were not merely limited on the implementation of the electoral principles. The Constitutional Court would be judged the recapitulation process substantially for the sake of examination. The Court could issue a decision apart from re-voting. However, every decision could only reach in the plenary session. ”We have to see indicators found in the evidences. There, the plenary session will decide whether to do voting again or not,” explained Justice Mukthie. (Kencana Suluh Hikmah)

Photo: Doc. MK PR/Kencana SH

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / MK