Board of Constitutional Justice, M. Akil Mochtar (Head of Panel) accompanied by Muhammad Alim and Hamdan Zoelva (members) examining the Petitionersâ file in the first session of Demak Election Dispute, Friday (25/3) at the Constitutional Court Plenary Courtroom.
Jakarta, MKOnline - Demak Regency in Central Java have just held their election on last March 6, 2011. The Demak Regency Election Commission have announced candidate pair Tafta Zani-Moh. Dachirin Said as the winner with 377.644 votes or about 74,38 percent of the total voters. However, this victory is still not the end as other candidates are making claims to the Constitutional Court (The Court). The examination for this case was held last Friday (25/3) at 13.00 WIB.
The Petitioners for this case are candidat pair Sa’idah-Haryanto (Petitioner I) and Moch. Nadjib-Siti Azzah (Petitioner II). They were accompanied by counsels under the name of Advocation Team for Demak Regional Election 2011, they were Harseno Hadisuripto and Abdun Nafi’ Al Fajri.
The previous recapitulation result had set the votes for Sa’idah-Haryanto were as much as 70,849 (13.95%) and candidate pair Moch Nadjib-Siti Azzah with 42,644 (8.40%). On this result, both pairs claimed that there had been misconducts during the election process.
“There have been systematic, structured and massive violations in 13 Districts, they are Bonang District, Gajah District, Karanganyar District, Wonosalam District, Sayung District, Kebonagung District, Mranggen District, Karangawen District, Karangtengah District, Demak City District, Dempet District, Wedung District, and Guntur District,” described the Petitioners’ counsel.
The violations claimed by the Petitioners covers the use of bureaucratic apparatus from long before the election; for example the involvement of Head of Education Service of Demak Regency Afhan Nur (Evidence P-3). Other claim was on the money politics in the mentioned districts.
The statement from the Demak Election Monitoring Committee in front of the Petitioners were also questioned. The statement “I emphasize that the report has to be made in written. Oral reports cannot be processed. We hold on to the existing rules and regulations. So if it is only the “they say”, it cannot be followed up because we do not categorize it as a report,” was considered by the Petitioners as an effort to block the reports they found.
The Panel of Justices in case 30/PHPU.D-IX/2011 scheduled for initial verification and advice giving decided to adjourn the session and continued on Monday (28/3) at 14.00 WIB (Yazid/mh/YDJ)
Friday, March 25, 2011 | 22:00 WIB 182