The Constitutional Court held the second trial for East Java Election case filed by the candidate pair Khofifah Indar Parawansa and Mudjiono (Kaji), Wednesday (19/11), at the Court s Plenary Room. The case No. 41/PHPU.D-VI/2008 was scheduled to hear rebuttals from Petitionees (East Java Election Commission) and related Party the candidate pair Soekarwo and Syaifullah Yusuf (Karsa), also to hear information from witnesses from the Petitioners side.
Before the Petitionees presented their response, the Petitioners through their Legal Counsel, Andi Muhammad Asrun, read out the summary of their improved Petition. Andi revealed the violations in the Election happened in seven areas, among others, Pamekasan Regency, Lamongan Regency, Madiun Regency, Nganjuk Regency, Sidoarjo Regency, Gading District of Probolinggo Regency, and Banyuwangi District of Banyuwangi Regency.
The violations were in form of illegal process of recapitulation in district level which was based on the recapitulation result from villages/subdistricts instead of from each Vote Center, difference of recapitulation result between Kaji s and the Election Commission s, procedural misconduct, reduced and marked up number of votes.
Besides that, in Kaji s improved Petition, based on their recapitulation result they should have reached 7,654,742 votes and Karsa pair with only 7,632,281 votes. Therefore, in their Petitum, the Petitioners demanded the Court to accept and grant their claims entirely; to announce the Election Commission s Decree No. 30/2008 dated November 11,2008 about the Recapitulation Result of East Java Second Round Election 2008 as illegal and legally annulled and void, or at least to announce illegal and legally annulled and void the repeated recapitulation in Pamekasan Regency, Dagangan District of Madiun Regency, also in Ngetos District of Kepel Village, Baron District of Jambi Village, Nggrogot District of Trayang Village in Nganjuk Regency, also Mojolegi, Wangkal, Prasi and Dandang Villages in Probolinggo Regency, and Banyuwangi District in Banyuwangi Regency; to announce the recapitulation result of East Java Election 2008 according to the Petitioners version; and to announce and declare the candidate pair Kaji as the elected candidates in East Java Second Round Election 2008.
Regarding the phrase ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âthe result of the repeated recapitulationÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ inserted in the Petitum, Andi Asrun made a correction by saying, ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âWe mean the recapitulation result.ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ
Meanwhile, in their rebuttal, the East Java Election Commission demanded the Court to refuse the Petitioners claim for having changed the recapitulation result as stated in the initial Petition informing that Kaji pair reached 7,595,199 votes and Karsa got 7,573,680 votes which then changed in the improved Petition. ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âApart from that, the Constitutional Court was not authorized to decide on Election violation cases but the dispute over the result,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ explained the Petitioners Legal Counsel.
After hearing the rebuttal from the Petitionees, the Court also heard the response from Related Party, the Karsa duet, represented by their Legal Counsels Trimulya Suryadi and Todung Mulya Lubis. In their statement, Trimulya protested the Petitioners correction by changing the phrase ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âthe result of repeated recapitulationÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ into ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âthe recapitulation resultÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ as uttered in the trial. ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âThe Petitioners have been given an opportunity to improve their Petition. Moreover, there is a basic difference in the meaning of repeated recapitulation and recapitulation,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ claimed Trimulya.
Trimulya, responding based on the written form of their improved Petition, demanded the Court to allow the Petitioners to prove at the first place that there had been a marked up of votes in the repeated recapitulation. ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âIf there were no repeated recapitulation, how can the Court to decide on annulling that?ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ wondered Trimulya.
Also adding, Todung Mulya Lubis considered the Petition was bias because the terminology used in it, in this case violation, according to Todung, was not a terminology used within the Court which was authorized only to examine the dispute on the recapitulation. ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âThe violation in the Election might happen but the settlement of the process is not at the hand of the Watchers Committee. From the data we have, the Petitioners had never reported their objections to the Petitionees,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ revealed Todung.
Responding to the objection from the Related Party, Andi Asrun demanded the Constitutional Court to accept the correction, ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âbecause when we read a sentence, we have to pay attention (for confirmation) we will cross examine with the data in the Election Commission,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ emphasize Asrun.
Commitment to The Court s Decision
In the trial, Board of Constitutional Justices lead by Maruarar Siahaan reminded the parties that this trial was held in the effort of finding material truth so that each party would be committed to accept whatever the Court decision would be.
Responding to that, Principal Petitioner, Khofifah Indar Parawansa, expected that the process of East Java election would be accepted by all Indonesian people, especially people in East Java. This process of democracy, said Khofifah, was a way to get a succession in honest, fair, and clean leadership. ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âTherefore, when we together with out team submitted the problem to the Constitutional Court, we expected that from various field evidences we got, we would find justice in the Court and we would have a clean, honest, and fair process of democracy in the future.ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ expected Khofifah.
Principal Related Party, Soekarwo, said that democracy was built on legislative regulations and everyone had to obey the existing regulations. Democracy, continued Soekarwo, had to be equivalent with legal obedience. ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âTo all East Java people, let us follow the Court s decision. Whatever decision made by the Constitutional Court is final that we have to obey, and we have to be open hearted towards the decision made by the Court,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ reminded Soekarwo.
Also speaking before the Court, Head of East Java Election Commission, Wahyudi Purnomo, stated that this trial was very important and strategic to prove to the people that this East Java Election Commission had been working equal to the procedure, according to the general principles that, ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã
âThe Election Commission is a neutral, profession, firmed, and independent institution.ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ stated Wahyudi.
In the trial, the Petitioners demanded to hear Experts and witnesses. However, the other parties made an objection to the idea because principally the trial only examined the evidences of differences in number of votes. Because of that, today s trial only heard 21 witnesses from the Petitioners side. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)
Photo: Doc. MK PR/Wiwik BW
Translated by Yogi Djatnika / MK
Thursday, November 20, 2008 | 07:14 WIB 239