The Constitutional Court stated that the Petition of Kasman Lassa, candidate No. 6 of Donggala Regent Election 2008 was refused entirely. That was announced by the Constitutional Court in the Decision Announcement trial for case 28/PHPU.D-VI/2008 chaired by the Chief Justice, Moh. Mahfud MD, Monday, (24/11) in the Constitutional Court Room.

Kasman Lassa argued that there was a mistake in the issuance of Donggala Regency in Central Sulawesi Election Commission Decree No. 278/168/KPU-KWK/2008 dated 28 Oktober 2008 about the Announcement of Winner of Regent Election in Donggala Regency for 2009-2014 period. The mistake was due to the inclusion of voters in Sigi Regency, which was the result of Expansion of Donggala Regency based on Act No. 27/2008 about the Forming of Sigi Regency in Central Sulawesi legalized on July 21, 2008. To support his argument, Kasman then asked Prof. Dr. Harun Alrasid to give information before the court.

Prof. Dr. Harun Alrasid in the trial explained that by the legislation of Act No. 27/2008 about the Forming of Sigi Regency in Central Sulawesi Province, it automatically caused the people in the region not to be included in the Election in Donggala Regency.

The Court, in the Legal Consideration read in turn among the justices, stated that the stipulation in the transitional provisions within the act did not state the people of Sigi Regency lost their rights to vote in Donggala Election.

Related to the expert information from Prof. Dr. Harun Alrasid, the Constitutional Court stated that they could not agree to that. ”Because the act a quo still needs a implementation provisions to be effectively works,” state Constitutional Justice Achmad Sodiki.

Responding to the argument of the Petitioner stating that in the condition that the Election Commission had not counted and included the voters from Sigi Regency (15 Districts), then the official result would only have been 133,791 votes. According to the Constitutional Court, provided that the argument had been correct –quod non– the people living in the expansion regency had been excluded from the Donggala Election and the votes gained by the Petitioners in Donggala Election had been counted apart from the votes coming from the expansion area, eventually the vote recapitulation in Petitioner’s version which put themselves in the second place, would not have been supported by evidences required. The proving was the burden of proof for the Petitioner.

”Hence, there is no reason to announce the vote recapitulation in Petitioner s version as the correct recapitulation,” concluded Sodiki. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono)

Foto: Dok. Humas MK/Andhini SF

Translated By Yogi Djatnika