The representative of the Election Commission of Palu Municipality shakes hand with the Attorney of the Related Party after the Pronouncement of Decision of the Case of Electoral Dispute of Palu Municipality, Wednesday (1/09) at the Plenary Court Room of the Constitutional Court.
Jakarta, MK Online – The Constitutional Court rejected petition of Electoral Dispute in the Election of Regional Head of Palu Municipality filed by Mayor-Vice Mayor Candidate Pair, Hasba Yanti Ponulele and Arman Djanggola, Wednesday (1/09) at the Plenary Court Room of the Constitutional Court. “Rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner in its entirety,” affirmed Mahfud MD.
In its verdict, the Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the arguments presented by the Petitioners about the existence of a systematic, massive and structured violation during the Regional Head General Election of Palu Municipality could not be proven during the hearings. This decision was based on the consideration of the Petitioners’ argument that the Defendant revoked 2,408 ballots on which the Petitioners’ picture and number were pierced through. However, they did not have any objection to ballots pierced on the picture of another candidate pair. In order to support this argument, the Petitioners presented witnesses Moh. Yasin and Muslimin.
The Defendant filed a counter-argument to the Petitioners’ argument, stating that the cases of pierced through ballots occurred in several Voting Stations had been settled by conducting a recount during the Recapitulation by District Election Committee. “The Petitioners’ witnesses had accepted and signed the Minutes of the Recapitulation of the Recount of Pierced through Ballots by District Election Committee. After studying and reviewing evidence presented by the Petitioners and Defendant, the Constitutional Court found a legal fact that the statements given by the Petitioners’ witnesses were inconsistent between one to another.” said Constitutional Justice Harjono.
Considering whereas most of the Petitioners’ arguments were proven by statement letters. However, the persons concerned had drawn up and signed these statement letters by themselves, rather by or in the presence of authorized officials. Therefore, these statement letters cannot be used as conclusive evidence since they were merely formal letters and were not supported by other evidence.
”Many of these statement letters have similar content to the statement given by the Petitioners’ witnesses at the hearing as examined in the foregoing consideration. Hence, the evidence a quo presented by the Petitioners must be disregarded. Based on abovementioned matters, the arguments a quo presented by the Petitioners must be deemed legally not proven,” explained Harjono. (RNB Aji/mh)
Thursday, September 02, 2010 | 12:24 WIB 203