Chairperson of the General Elections Commission of Teluk Bintuni Regency, Marike Rumbrapuk received the copy of decision from the Acting Registrar of the Constitutional Court, Kasianur Sidauruk after the Decision Pronouncement Hearing, Friday (8/10/10)
Jakarta, MKOnline – The Constitutional Court finally decided to reject in its entirety, the Petitioners’ petition in the case of Dispute of the Results of the Regional Head General Elections of Teluk Bintuni Regency – Case No. 174/PHPU. D-VIII/2010 – on Friday (8/10) at the Plenary Court room of the Constitutional Court.
“The Court draws a conclusion that the principal issue of the Petitioners’ petition is not legally proven. In the Principal Issue of the Case, to reject the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” as pronounced by Mahfud MD (Chairperson of the Panel of Justices) in the decision pronouncement hearing of the Regional Head General Elections of Teluk Bintuni Regency.
With regard to the Petitioners’ argument that the process of the 2010 Regional Head General Elections of Teluk Bintuni Regency was dishonest and unfair, hence it affected the acquisition of the Petitioners’ votes and was only benefiting the Related Party, as among others evident in the different and unsychronized numbers of the candidate pairs, the Respondent denied the arguments of Petitioners a quo since before it was set forth in a Decision, a polling was conducted, it was impossible for such thing to have occurred.
Considering the arguments of the Petitioners a quo and the rebuttal of the Respondent a quo, the Court had examined Exhibit P-1, Exhibit T-4 and examined Exhibit PT-1 (of the Related Party). In addition to that, the Court considered that the Petitioners were unable to prove the relevance between the stipulation of candidate numbers on July 2010 and the Petitioners’ argument which stated that the inconsistency in the stipulation of candidate number had created legal uncertainty for Voters, particularly the elderly voting for the Candidate Pair in September 2010.
The Court questioned the validity and legality of the Petitioners’ evidence and also deemed that the three-month period prior to the voting day, in which the campaign activities were conducted, was sufficient for each candidate pair to disseminate their respective candidate number. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioners’ argument is not legally proven.
Furthermore, with regard to the Petitioners’ argument on the violation in the phase of administrative verification on candidate pair participating in the Regional Head General Elections, the Court was of the opinion that such argument is not legally proven, in terms of those related to the administrative requirements because the Related Party is neither a good taxpayer, the Chairperson of the Regional Representative Council of Golkar Party of Teluk Bintuni Regency nor an active civil servant, and to the process of administrative requirements of candidate pairs, and that the Respondent never involved the Regional Head General Elections Supervisory Committee.
Subsequently with regard to the Petitioners’ argument that Decision of the Respondent No. 20/Kpts/KPU TB/032.436653/ 2010 concerning Stipulation of Permanent Voter List in the 2010 Regional Head General Elections of Teluk Bintuni Regency dated August 9, 2010 was only based on the Provisional Voter List and did not include the results of factual verification on the Permanent Voter List by the Joint Team (both success teams, the Regional Head General Elections Supervisory Committee, the Respondent and the Related Party), the Court considered that such argument is not legally proven.
The Court’s opinion was based on the Respondent’s denial that the stipulation of the Permanent Voter List had referred to the Provisional Voter List on which the Voter Data Updating Officers appointed by the Polling Committee subsequently conducted the factual verification. The Respondent also denied that it has unilaterally stipulated the Permanent Voter List of Bintuni District and only used the Provisional Voter List as reference and disregarded the verification conducted by the Joint Team. Since the beginning, the Petitioner only questioned the Permanent Voter List in Bintuni Timur Sub-District, Bintuni Barat Sub-District and Kampung Beimes Sub-District in accordance with the agreement dated July 26, 2010.
Prior to the stipulation of the Permanent Voter List, the Respondent had underwent several Phases of Voter List Updating, among others by Updating Voter List from DP-4, provided by the Regional Government through the Service Office for Population Affairs and Vital Records, and compiled it as the Provisional Voter List. The Respondent and also updated Initial Revision to Provisional Voter List, Final Revision to Provisional Voter List and Permanent Voter List.
“Therefore, the Petitioners’ argument on the Stipulation of Permanent Voter List is not legally proven and must be disregarded,” the Panel of Justices affirmed.
Furthermore, with regard to other arguments presented by the Petitioners, such as about the distribution of ballot papers, violation in the form of money politics, campaign during the calm period, intimidation and violation in the voting process, basically the Court stated in its legal consideration that those arguments are not legally proven. (Nano Tresna A./mh)
Monday, October 11, 2010 | 10:13 WIB 222