The continuing trial of dispute over election result of West Papua Province - Case No.84/PHPU. D-IX/2011 - held again at the Plenary Meeting Room at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (11 / 8) afternoon. Agenda of the session is to listen to the answers of the Parties to the Respondent against the arguments presented in the previous trial Applicant Party. Panel of Judges consists of Moh. Mahfud MD (Panel Chair) and was accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and Anwar Usman.

Respondent party in the case of West Papua Provincial Election Commission explained that the Petitioner’s argument about the violation of the authority of the Provincial Election Commission is inappropriate question in the trial Court. Since the General Election in West Papua applicable general provisions as another General Election in Indonesia.

"Then comes the issue of MRP or Papuan People’s Assembly, the Petitioner should have filed a lawsuit to the administrative court to cancel the first establishment of the MRP of West Papua," said Party Respondent.

Another thing continued the Respondent Party, relating to allegations the Petitioner that the Respondent does not comply with the Administrative Court ruling, that there is a Supreme Court circular No.7/2010 which states that the Administrative Court judges should be wise and prudent in deciding the delay, should see the wider interests and not disturbs the course of election process.

But if you look at the facts, the Respondent continued Parties, petition the administrative court in Jayapura test lawsuit filed on June 28, 2011. Then it delays decision on July 8, 2011, but the process of running a new trial on July 18, 2011, although the voting takes place on July 20, 2011.

"That is, the administrative court judge did not comply with the circulars issued by the Supreme Court. In our opinion, the administrative court of the Supreme Court did not run a command to attend the General Election should go fast. Here there is a grace period of one month, "added Party Respondent.

Next, the Respondent Party said, about the legitimacy of the people of West Papua is very low and do not represent the people of West Papua, in this case the law only regulates Election performed again if the vote is less than 30 percent of valid votes user. Respondent also responded to the addition of parties petition the Petitioner, which was considered unreasonable because unsupported by the fundamental postulates.

"Therefore we request that the judges reject the entire petition and declare the argument of the Respondent deemed valid and enforceable," said the Respondent.

The trial of West Papua Province filed by Candidate Governor and Deputy Governor of West Papua Avg. Sort 1 Wahidin Puarada-Herman Sonatus Pelix Orisoe and Candidate Dominggus Mandacan- Origenes Nauw.

In the main petition, the Petitioner was represented by legal counsel; Andrew M. Asrun explained there has been a breach of procedures carried out by the KPU Province of West Papua as a Respondent. In addition, Asrun said it has exceeded the authority to make the determination would be candidates without seeking approval from the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) as stipulated in the law regarding Papuan special autonomy.

"The approval of ratification by the MRP used by the Respondent, we value as an illegal act because the MRP is formed by Related Party Abraham O. Atururi-Rahimin Katjong to accommodate the interests of stakeholders. MRP is original only in Jayapura, "said Asrun. (Nano Tresna A. / mh/Yazid.tr)