The Panel of Justices is reading out the decision on the case of Regional Head Electoral Dispute in Halmahera Utara Regency, Thursday (9/16) at the Plenary Court Room of the Constitutional Court. Justice Mahfud MD, Justice Harjono and Justice Maria Farida Indrati are seen.
Jakarta, MK Online – The Constitutional Court finally decided upon the petition of the case of Regional Head and Vice Regional Head Electoral Dispute (PHPU) in Halmahera Utara Regency Number 155/PHPU.D-VIII/2010 by rejecting it in its entirety. “In the Exception: To reject the exception of the Defendant and the Related Party; In the Principal Case: To reject the petition of the Petitioners in its entirety,” the Head of Panel of Justices Moh. Mahfud MD said during the reading of the injunction of decision attended by eight constitutional justices, Thursday (9/16), at the Plenary Court Room of the Constitutional Court.
The Petition was filed by candidate pair Frans Manery and Rusdi Djoge as Petitioner I, Muchlis Tapi Tapi and Hapri Bolango as Petitioner II, Eduard Loasari and Muhammd Mifta Baay as Petitioner III and Djidon Hangewa and Bahardi Ngongira as Petitioner IV. Petitioner I were regent and vice regent candidate pair Number 2, Petitioner II were Candidate Pair Number 4, Petitioner III were candidate pair number 5, and Petitioner IV, the last petitioner were candidate pair number 6.
In the legal consideration, the Constitutional Court stated that it has the authority to try the case and that the Petitioner has the legal standing to file the petition and the petition was filed within the time limit set by law. With respect to the exception related to the conflict of interest which may be created because the Petitioners’ attorney represented Petitioners I up to IV, the Court was of the opinion that the process of assistance by the Petitioners’ attorney has met the requirements in the rules of legal proceedings in the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the exception of the petition of the Petitioners was non-executable. In addition to that, the Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the exception was legally inaccurate. “Under the aforementioned considerations, according to the Court, the exception of the Petitioner and the Related Party is legally inaccurate,” Constitutional Justice Hamdan Zoelva said.
Furthermore, in its opinion, the Court stated that the principal issues of the petition in question, insofar as related to Permanent Voter List (DPT), have no legal grounds, thus it should be disregarded. In addition, the argument presented by the Petitioners which stated that candidate pair number 1 acquired 18,241 votes was merely an assumption. Constitutional Justice Hamdan Zoelva explained, “Because the Petitioners did not provide a detail and clear explanation of the vote acquisition a quo and because the argument a quo of the Petitioners is not supported by sufficient evidence.”
Subsequently, with respect to the consideration of the Court to the changes of schedule of the 2010 Regional Head General Election in Halmahera Utara Regency for three times, the Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the General Election Commission of Halmahera Utara Regency has indeed changed the schedule, but it does not constitute administrative violation of the General Election. The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the change was caused by technical administrative issues, rather than by the element of “intent” to delay the schedule and the phase of the Regional Head General Election in Halmahera Utara Regency. “Even if there was an element of intent to delay the schedule and the phase of the Regional Head General Election, quod non, it would not affect the vote acquisition of the respective candidate pairs. Therefore, the argument a quo of the Petitioners is legally inaccurate,” Constitutional Justice Hamdan Zoelva described.
With respect to the argument on the indication of forged signature of the Head of the General Election Commission of Halmahera Utara Regency in a number of Decisions of the General Election Commission of Halmahera Utara Regency which caused the process of establishment of the District Election Committee (PPK), the Polling Committee (PPS) and the Ballot Group Organizer (KPPS) to be invalid, according to the Court, the use of signature stamp in several Decisions of the General Election Commission was justifiable insofar as it was approved by the person concerned. Constitutional Justice Muh Alim stated in the hearing, “Moreover, the use of signature stamp does not result in the annulment of the decision concerned because the Decision of the General Election Commission is a collective decision made by the General Election Commission of Halmahera Utara Regency. Therefore, the argument a quo of the Petitioner has no legal grounds.”
With respect to the argument that an administrative flaw was found in the nomination of candidate pair number 1 (Ir. Hein Namotemo, MSP and Dr. Rusman Soleman, S.E., M.Si, Ak), the Court was of the opinion that the Defendant has made administrative and actual verification to the requirement of support from political parties on Friday, July 2, 2010, at the Office of Central Executive Board of Golkar Party. The result was set out in Minutes of Verification Number 028.1/II.a/BA.KPU HALUT/VII/2010 to which no one raised an objection. “In addition to the internal issue in Golkar Party as to whether Candidate Pair Number 1 in the name of Hein Namotemo was nominated during the administration of Hein Namotemo or during the administration of Zadrak Tongo-Tongo, according to the Court, Hein Namotemo was still the valid candidate nominated by Golkar Party,” Hamdan continued.
According to the Court, the arguments that the ballots were not printed in accordance with the technical standards and that the officers and members of the District Election Committee holding the Regional Head General Election did not have the decision of appointment and other arguments presented have no legal grounds. (Miftakhul Huda)
Friday, September 17, 2010 | 17:37 WIB 426