Sporadic Money Politics, Demak Election Case Rejected
Image

Registrar of the Constitutional Court, Kasianur Sidauruk gave away a copy of the decision to the legal counsels of each party in the Demak Election Case after the session, Monday (11/4) at the Plenary Courtroom.


Jakarta, MKOnline - The Constitutional Court (The Court) rejected the petition on the dispute over Demak Election Result. Money politics and the involvement of bureaucratic apparatus by The Court were considered unproven convincingly and without legal ground. The Decision was read on Monday (11/4) at 16.00 WIB at The Court Building.
 
The Petitioner for the case registered with number 30/PHPU.D-IX/2011 was Sa’idah-Haryanto pair (Petitioners I) and Moch. Nadjib-Siti Azzah (Petitioners II). They were accompanied by legal counsels under the name Advocating Team of Demak Election 2011, in this case they were Harseno Hadisuripto and Abdun Nafi’ Al Fajri.
 
Demak recapitulation previously set the votes for Sa’idah-Haryanto was as much as 70,849 (13.95%) and Moch. Nadjib-Siti Azzah with 42,644 (8.40%). While Demak Election Commission set Tafta Zani-Moch. Dachirin Said as the winner with 377,644 votes or 74.38 percent of the total voters.

On this result, the two Petitioners claimed that there had been violations in the process of the election. The charges they applied were systematic violations in form of using bureaucratic staff of Regency government which happened long before the stages and the scheduling of the election by the Respondents; the Petitioners considered the Head of Education Service, Afhan Nur was involved (Petitioners attached the evidence in P-3).

The Petitioners suspected the systematic, structured and massive occurred in 13 district area namely, Bonang, Gajah, Karanganyar, Wonosalam, Sayung, Kebonagung, Mranggen, Karangawen, Karangtengah, Demak City, Dempet, Wedung, and Guntur Districts.

Besides that, the structured violations were argued to be the involvement of bureaucratic structure in every district and sub-district. In total, there were 126 evidence attached with 26 witnesses presented by the Petitioners and heard under oath in the sessions on March 28 and March 30, 2011.

The Respondent themselves submitted 39 written evidence and eleven witnesses. All witnesses stated to deny what the Petitioners argued. Meanwhile the Related Party attached 28 evidences.
 
The Court’s Opinion

In their legal opinion, The Court considered that the Petitioners’ argument on money politics were just sporadic. “It turns out that the Petitioners’ argument were not supported by sufficient evidence to convince that the money politics were structured, systematic and massive which significantly affected the votes for candidates. Even if there were money politics suspected to be conducted by the Related Party, quod non, the violations were sporadic happened in several places,” announced the Board of Justices.

The meetings of district or sub-district apparatus suspected as violations, by The Court they were considered as unproven convincingly as effort to win the Related Party. “Based on all explanation, the Petitioner’s lawsuit is unproven and unreasonable before the law,” stated the Board of Justices (Yazid/mh/YDJ)


Monday, April 11, 2011 | 21:30 WIB 196