Principal Petitioners Hamdi (candidate pair 1 Sukandar-Hamdi) accompanied by his counsel Heru Widodo hearing to the information from the counsel of Related Party, Arteria Dahlan (on screen) in the session for the dispute over Tebo Election case, Wednesday (30/3), at the Plenary Courtroom.
Jakarta, MKOnline – The next session on the dispute over Tebo Election result case was held by the Constitutional Court (The Court), Wednesday (30/3) at the Plenary Courtroom of The Court. The session for case No. 33/PHPU.D-IX/2011 was scheduled for revision of petition also substantiation led by Chairman of the Panel Board of Justices M. Akil Mochtar. The Petitioners were candidate pair No. 1, Sukandar-Hamdi, represented by their counsels Heru Widodo, Supriyadi Adi and Subagyanto.
Arteria Dahlan as the counsels of the Related Party stated that the arguments revealed by the Petitioners were just individual claims. According to Arteria, the Petitioners claimed that all violations happened based on their opinions without explaining the place of occurrence. “The Petitioners did not mention where the violations occurred, in which poll centers, in which villages. All that the Petitioners claimed was far from being a legal fact,” pointed out Arteria.
According to Arteria, the Petitioners also failed to prove the structured, systematic, and massive violations which affected the recapitulation result. Besides, continued Arteria, there was no objection from the Petitioners during the recapitulation process whether in the poll centers, polling committee or in Sub-district election committee. “There were several reports from the Petitioners but when they were checked, they could not be proven by the Petitioners. Then the Petitioners’ arguments on the lost votes as much as 2,791 still needs to be proven,” he explained.
Besides that, Arteria also denied the claims on money politic practices committed by his clients, candidate pair 3 Yopi Muthalib-Sri Sapto Edi. On the other hand, he also accused that it was the Petitioners who had done such things. “It is the Petitioners who distributed 500 thousand rupiah to voters and promised to multiply the number up to 5 million if the Petitioners were elected,” he revealed.
The Election Commission of Tebo Regency as the Respondent also denied all Petitioners claims. According to Maiful Effendi and associates, there were no reports on the violations also not a single objections were made by Petitioners’ witnesses during the election and the recapitulation process. “It means that the Petitioners accepted the recapitulation result managed by the Respondents,” he concluded.
Money Distribution
In the session, the Petitioners brought ten of his witnesses explaining about the gathering of district heads and village heads by the Related Party on December 29, 2010. A Petitioners’ witness, Rahmat Hidayat revealed that he received a notification from the District Head, Joni Hendriputra to attend the meeting in Sederhana Muaro Bungo Restaurant. “In the meeting, there was an advice from the District Head (Joni, ed.) to support candidate Yopi Muthalib-Sri Sapto. Then, after the event, we were each given an envelope containing 500 thousand rupiah,’ he told.
The same thing was stated by Nuryamin that there was such meeting held on February 7, 2011 to meet Jambi Governor. According to Nuryamin, at that time there was some kind of oath swearing on the district heads and village heads in Tebo Regency to support the Related Party. “We are sworn by the name of Allah with lamps and cell phones were turned off. After that, we were each given an envelope containing 1 million,” he explained.
The Petitioners in the main substance revealed the money politic practices and the involvement of government apparatus in winning the Related Party. Through their legal counsel Heru Widodo. The Petitioners delivered their objections to the minutes of recapitulation meeting and the Decision of Tebo Election Commission on the announcement of the recapitulation result. The Petitioners considered the victory of candidate pair 3 (Related Party) was achieved by ways of breaking the law and abusive power of the Respondents. The Petitioners also considered committed by the Related Party and the Petitioners were conducted in a structured, systematic and massive way (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/YDJ)
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 | 21:22 WIB 292