Registrar of the Court, Kasianur Sidauruk handing over a copy of the Decision for case No. 16-17-18/PHPU.D-IX/2011 on Grobogan District Election, Central Java to the parties after the court session on Monday (21/2/11)
Jakarta, MKOnline - Three cases related to Election in Grobogan District, Central Java, submitted by three Regent/Vice candidate pairs, in its decision the Court decided to rejected two of the cases with another one being disqualified. The verdict was read out on Monday (2/21/2011) at 16.00 pm in the Court’s Building.
The three pairs were Sumarni-H. Pirman (candidate no. 1) with the case number 16/PHPU.D-IX/2011. The second pair, Bambang Budisatyo - Edy Mulyanto (no. 4) for Case No. 17/PHPU.D-IX/2011. And the third pair, Pangkat Djoko Widodo - Muhammad Nurwibowo (no. 2) for Case No.18/PHPU.D-IX/2011.
Case No. 16 which complained about a mass mobilization of civil servants and the bureaucracy, as well as allegations of Grobogan Regent as an incumbent candidate deliberately made a slow response to the letter from Regional Head Election Supervisory Committee (Panwaslukada) of Grobogan Regency Number 211/Panwaslukada/GROB/XI/2010, was rebuffed by the evidence and the witnesses presented by the Respondent and Related Parties. The Respondent attached 46 written evidence (T-1 to T-46), while the Related Parties attached 20 written evidence (PT-1 to PT-20).
In their opinion, the Court saw that all the Petitioners' arguments could not be categorized as structured, systematic, and massive efforts that might affected the votes. In addition, the arguments from the Petitioner was not supported by sufficient evidence so they were considered unreasonable under the law.
Furthermore, in case No. 17, after assessing the existing facts, the Court believed that it was true Grobogan Regent had given lectures in several residencies at the morning ceremony which is an activity commonly performed in the execution of everyday tasks. However, the lectures during the morning ceremonies were not sufficient to be considered as a violation that is structured, systematic, and massive that affected the ranking of candidate votes, thus the Petitioners' argument was not proven.
As for other arguments, the Court also saw that the Petitioner was unable to prove their arguments. The Respondent's themselves submitted the same evidence as for Case No. 16, as well as the Related Party to deny Petitioner's arguments.
While in Case No. 18, the Petitioner had been summoned legally and ought to attend the session, but due to their absence then the Constitutional Court decided to disqualify them. (Yazid/mh/YDJ)
Monday, February 21, 2011 | 19:29 WIB 180