The Constitutional Court stated that the claims from Samsudin Mandja and Renreng Palloloi, Candidate pair No. 4 in Pinrang Regency Election, could not be accepted. That was announced in the trial for decision readout for case 43/PHPU.D-VI/2008 chaired by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, Tuesday (2/12), at the Court s Room.

Samsudin Mandja and Renreng Palloloi (Petitioner) objected the Recapitulation Result of Pinrang Election announced by the Petitionee, the Pinrang Election Commission based on the Decision of the Commission No. 55/2008 about the Announcement of Elected Candidate and Second Place Winner in Pinrang Election 2008 dated November 3, 2008.

Samsudin-Palloloi considered the Decision of the Commission had many manipulation in the numbers announced as if it was done on purpose to make them attained 25,372 votes far under the votes for Candidate pair Aslam Patonangi and Kaharuddin Machmud with 49,826.

At the beginning, the Petitioner had registered their claim to Pinrang District Court registered with number 19/Pdt.G/2008/P.N.Pinrang on November 6, 2008 and supported by the information letter from the Registrar of Pinrang District Court dated November 14, 2008 and had been sent to the Constitutional Court. However, while the dispute was brought to the Constitutional Court on November 13, 2008, Pinrang Court still scheduled the initial trial on November 25, 2008 according to the receipt call from Pinrang Court dated November 12, 2008.

Looking at the Petitum of the Petitioner, the main points demanded: (i) Pinrang Election Commission (Petitionee 1) did not announce the candidates with the most votes and the second most votes until the verdict for the case had a firm legal power; (ii) the Commission (Petitionee 1) to do a re-election; (iii) the Election Watcher Committee (Petitionee 2) to report everybody, whether the common people or Civil Servant involved in the election to the police; and (iv) all Petitionees (Pinrang Elction Commission and the Watchers Committee) to be punished and paid the case fee altogether.

According to the Constitutional Court, the substance of the Petitioner s claim was not about objects that belonged under dispute over General Election case as the result it was not the Court s authority to examine, trialed and decide on the case if the case was brought to the Court. “Consequently, the Court can not accept the transfer of claims a quo to be examined, trialed and decided,” told Constitutional Justice Maruarar Siahaan.

Besides that, in the trial on November 25, 2008; the Petitioner had admitted that the case filed and registered in the Constitutional Court was a new lawsuit (Case No. 43/PHPU.D-VI/2008) filed to the Constitutional Court by the Petitioner on November 13, 2008.  the lawsuit was different from the one submitted by the Petitioner to Pinrang District Court with Registration No. 19/Pdt.G/2008/PN.Pinrang.

“Based on facts also Petitioner s testimonial, the Petition submitted to the Court should have been done to the latest of November 6, 2008, therefore the submission of the case on November 18, 2008 had passed the deadline allowed by the Act No. 32/2004 about the Regional Government and the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 15/2008,” explained Maruarar. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono)

Photo: Doc. MK PR/Andhini SF

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / MK