The Constitutional Court (MK) has finally decided to reject the entire petition in the case PHPU Maybrat District - No. 95, 96, 97/PHPU.D-IX/2011 - on Monday (17/10) afternoon at the Plenary Court Room. "The verdict is hearing, stating, in refusing exception of Respondent and the Related Parties. In the main petition, rejected the petition in its entirety, "said Chairman of the Plenary Moh. Mahfud MD was accompanied by other constitutional judges.

In voters registers Case No. 95 as the decisions of the previous General Election, the Court has stated in the implementation stages of the election, that the actual preparation of voter list but not the obligation of the Respondent alone, but also the duty of local governments to provide population data, as well as supervisory committee of regional head election role in overseeing the implementation stage of the preparation of voter lists to fit the corridor set by the legislation.

On case No. 95, according to the Court, it can be said to harm one of the candidates, especially the applicant, the applicant must prove in advance whether the double name was not corrected by the KPU Maybrat. True if multiple names are still listed in the DPT, the Petitioner must also prove the people whose names such double voting more than once, and must be proven to anyone concerned must be sound. Petitioner did not prove some of these. Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument must be declared not proven according to law.

Meanwhile, Case # 96 Petitioner argues that Respondent committed violations and related in a structured, systematic and massive that the Respondent did not carry out the stages of election that has been established under legislation in force, the Respondent did not perform validation and / or updating the data of voters in 11 districts and 102 villages, never to set and announce the Voters List, Voters List Supplement, voters list to the people.

Additionally, Petitioner argues that Respondent perform the printing of ballot papers of 25,000 pieces before DPT approved. Such action by the Petitioner was not in accordance with applicable regulations. The Petitioner next argues that the recapitulation of vote counting for 2 (two) days without the presence of witnesses from all candidates except the witness of the candidate sequence number 2.Petitioner also argues that Respondent Party to destruction and demolition of the ballot boxes Aifat District of North, South Aifat and East Aifat without the presence of witnesses from the other candidates except the witness related, as well as by the PPD.

Court to consider the Petitioners’ argument as already described, the Respondent has conducted data validation and updating of the voter to produce a DPT with sticking in public places in a village and broadcast over local radio, and even be notified by using loudspeakers. Besides The Respondent told the PPS through the PPD to improvement of the Voters List; that the data submitted by the applicant in the arguments is not correct and is the assumption of the Applicant. Because based on evidence that is owned by the Respondent: data selector President in 2009 set by South Sorong Regency instead of 17 178 voters but 18,198 voters. Thus according to the Court, the argument Party petition is not proven according to law.

Furthermore, the Related Parties in response denies Case No. 97 Petitioner was stating the Petitioners’ argument is unclear and vague, not clearly describe the reason there is an objection petition proceeds of his voice and the presence of witnesses and the candidate about the presence or absence witnesses candidate is not a legitimate requirement of the Respondent’s decision. Thus according to the Court, Petitioners’ argument is unfounded.

On case no. 97, the Respondent in his reply stated principally at the opening of ballot boxes Aifat Distik and South Aifat was forced open with the approval of Supervisory Committee, South Sorong Police, and witnesses candidate sequence number 2, because the key ballot box was taken by the PPD and Aifat Southern District. After assessing the Petitioners ‘argument, the evidence of the Respondent, the Court argues, Petitioners’ argument does not prove that the Petitioner has not been proven according to law. (Nano Tresna A. / mh/Yazid.tr)