The Constitutional Court (the Court) held the trial for the dispute over second round election result in Sanggau, West Kalimantan, Monday (12/1), at the Court s Main Room, with witness examining as the agenda.

The trial for case No. 64/PHPU.D-VI/2008 was pleaded by candidate pair No. 2, Yansen Akun Effendy and Abdullah (Mantab), which claimed against the decision of the Sanggau Election Commission (the Commission) to give victory to candidate pair No. 6, H. Setiman H. Sudin and Paolus Hadi (Setia).

A Petitioner s witness, Suradi, on December 11, 2008 admitted attending the meeting in the house of someone named Yasirun which was also attended by the success team of Setia package. In the meeting, one of the members of the success team ordered at the election day, Monday (15/12/08), the people of Tunggal Bakti Village to vote for candidate No. 6. “Whoever refused to vote for (candidate) No. 6, would be expelled from the village and their houses would be burnt down,” testified Suradi imitating the statement from one of the success team members.

Meanwhile, another witness, Susanto, explained that after the election, he saw some undelivered invitation letters. Meanwhile a Petitioner s witness, Herman, said that he found double citizenship numbers and Fixed Voters Lists in his area. Besides that, Herman also admitted that in Vote Center 22 in Cinta Beringin area, Subungkuh Village, the official of Election Holder Team opened the ballot boxes before 13.00. However, when the Justices confirmed that to the Petitionee, the Commission admitted that they did not bring the transcript of proceeding in Vote Center 22. “The right thing according to the law, Your Honor, is that the counting begins after one o clock,” replied the Petitionee s Legal Counsel.

In the next testimonial, Fransiskus, which sat as the witness from Mantab explained that in the recapitulation process in Regency level, he made an objection because previously he received a report that there had been many violations in every district. “Witness for candidate pair No. 2, almost in all Vote Centers, did not receive the transcript of the proceeding, as the result (I) did not join the recapitulation process and did not sign the transcript of the proceeding either,” he admitted.

It was added by the information from Yuliansyah, a voter in Vote Center 2 of Tanjung Kapuas Sub-district, Kapuas District, which was ordered to vote twice by the Head of the Election Team. He voted for himself and in the place of his parents. This was done under the order from the Head of the Election Team. When the Justices questioned whether or not there had been election watchers in the Vote Center, Yuliansah replied, “oh, there was no one, Your Honor.”

Yuliansyah continued by saying that there were actually a witness for candidate No. 2, however was afraid to protest, because the Head of the Election Team was the Head of his neighbor community. “It s not a problem. It s just us, between us, knows.” said Yuliansyah imitating the saying from the Head of the Neighbor Community.

After hearing to the information from the witnesses, the Head of Justice Panel Board, Arsyad Sanusi, set the deadline for all parties to hand in their conclusions, which was Tuesday (13/1), 16.00 WIB (GMT+07.00), meanwhile the decision for this case would be read on Tuesday (20/1) at 10.00 WIB. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)

Photo: Doc. of CCRI PR/Wiwik BW

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / CCRI