Board of Constitutional Justices when reading the decision for case number 38/PHPU.D-IX/2011 regarding the election dispute of Bolaang Mongondow submitted by candidate pair Suharjo D. Makalalag â Hasna Mokodompit. In the decision, The Court announced that the petition could not be accepted. Thursday (28/4) at the plenary courtroom.
Jakarta, MKOnline - The Constitutional Court (The Court) could not accept the petition filed by the Candidate Pair of Bolaang Mongondow Suharjo D. Makalalag – Hasna Mokodompit. That was the decision No. 38/PHPU.D-IX/2011 read by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (The Court) Moh. Mahfud MD accompanied by seven other justices on Thursday (28/4) at the Plenary Courtroom.
Constitutional Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi explained that the Respondent (Bolaang Mongondow Election Commission) and the Related Party (Hj. Salihi B. Mokodongan-Yanny Ronny Tuuk) had filed an exception concerning the Petitioners’ legal standing. “The Respondents and the Related Party argued that the Petitioners were not candidate pair in Bolaang Mongondow election 2011 as regulated in Constitutional Court Regulation PMK 15/2008. On this matter, explained Fadlil, The Court need to quote considerations from several decisions of The Court concerning candidates, they were Decision No. 196-197-198/PHPU.D/2010 and No. 31/PHPU.D-IX/2011,” explained Fadlil.
While Constitutional Justice Harjono explained that the Petitioners were candidates in Bolaang Mongondow election supported by seventeen political parties. The requirements was also supported by Model B1-KWK-KPU PARTAI POLIITIK in form of A Statement of General Agreement among Political Parties Participating in General Election in the Candidacy for Regional Head and Vice. After examining the Candidacy Letter No. 001/TK/01/2011 dated January 13, 2011, continued Harjono, The Court found legal facts that six parties; PPRN, PKPI, PDP, PB, PBB, and PPD, supporting the Petitioners had also supported other candidates (Drs. Hi. Samsurijal Mokoagow, S.H., M.H., and Ir. Hi. Nurdin Mokoginta, M.M.) as candidates in the election. The support from the six parties to the Petitioners and Drs. Hi. Samsurijal Mokoagow, S.H., M.H.,-Ir. Hi. Nurdin Mokoginta, M.M. were signed by different officers.
“Based on that fact, The Respondents delivered a letter to the Petitioners No. 239/KPUBM/I/2011, dated January 19, 2011, concerning the Clarification of Documents’ Completeness for Bolaang Mongondow Regent-Vice Regent candidates and Letter No. 249/KPUBM/I/2011 concerning the statement for the Petitioners to complete their documents to the latest date of submission to the Petitioners on January 21, 2011 at 20.00 o’clock Central Indonesia Time,” explained Harjono.
Then The Petitioners argued that the Respondents action by accepting the registration of Drs. Samsurijal Mokoagow, M.H. and Ir. Nurdin Mokoginta as a candidate pair had violated Article 7 paragraph (3) of PKPU 13/2010. Deputy Chief Justice of The Court, Achmad Sodiki explained that after examining the evidence, The Court found legal facts that it was unknown which candidates were initially supported by the six parties, because based on the evidence in form of candidacy document, the Petitioners did not put the date, month and year of the issuance of the statement of general agreement together with the support from the seventeen parties. “On the other hand, based on T-13 evidence, the support for candidacy to Drs. Hi. Samsurijal Mokoagow, S.H., M.H., and Ir. Hi. Nurdin Mokoginta, MM was dated January 13, 2011. Based on the consideration and the legal fact, The Court considered that the argument of the Petitioners is not legally reasonable,” he explained.
Meanwhile on the Respondents’ Decision Number 8 of 2011 on the Announcement of Candidates for Bolaang Mongondow Regent and Vice Regent Candidacy had been decided by the Manado State Administrative Court in their decision number 07/G/2011/PTUN.MDO, dated April 8, 2011. In considering the legality of the proposed candidates as candidates, The Court was not only based on the decisions of the state administrative court. “Therefore, according to The Court, evidence in form of the Decision of Manado State Administrative Court had convincingly proved to The Court about the double support from political parties made by different managements. Therefore, according to The Court, should there be a political party supporting the Petitioners is problematic and after being clarified the party do not actually support the Petitioners, then the Petitioners do not fulfill the candidacy requirements as arranged in Article 59 paragraph (2) of Act 12 of 2008 and Article 36 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation (PP) number 6 of 2005,” he explained.
Thus, in the conclusion read by the Chief Justice, The Court concluded that the exceptions from the Respondents and the Related Party on the Petitioners’ Legal Standing to submit their petition was legally reasonable also the Petitioners did not have a legal standing to file a petition. “To state in the Exception to reject the exceptions from the Respondents and Related Party concerning the Court’s authority. To accept the exception from the Respondents and Related Party on the Petitioners’ legal standing. In the main substance, the Petitioners’ petition could not be accepted,” he ended. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/YDJ)
Friday, April 29, 2011 | 06:29 WIB 267