Court Rejected Dispute of Election Results of Batang Regency

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the application of dispute resolution Batang election results in 2011. Decision by Number 126/PHPU.D-IX/2011 is filed by Candidate Regent and Vice Regent of the General Election of Regional Head and Deputy Head of Batang Regency Year 2011 Number 3, namely Dhedy Irawan and Mujarwo. This petition was read by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, assisted by eight judges constitution on Tuesday (17 / 1), at the Plenary Court Room.

"Declare, in Exception, rejects the Respondent. In the main petition, it rejected the petition in its entirety, "said Mahfud read the verdict.

In the opinion of the Court which was read by Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki, the argument the Respondent has violated during the implementation phases of the Candidate registration Batang Election Year 2011.After the Court has carefully observe and study, Sodiki explain the Court considered in the research process and the requirements of the Candidate files Regent and Vice Regent rods and in the process of verification and clarification on the relevant agencies have been committed by Respondent in accordance with applicable regulations. Regarding the alleged diploma is manipulated, the Court reveals that the authority of other agencies to complete both administrative and criminal.

"In addition, it also can not be ascertained if the Candidate Pair Number 2 does not qualify to be participants Batang Election Year 2011, Petitioner will be the winner on Election Year 2011 Batang as argued by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Court is Petitioner’s argument is groundless law, "he explained.

Petitioner also argues that the Respondent has committed an offense on the eve of election day 2011 Election Batang i.e. by entering the name of voters who have never recorded in a copy of the voters list (SDPT) to the list of voters to vote at polling places. After the Court has carefully observe and study, Sodiki Court can accept the reasons put forward the Respondent in making changes in order to accommodate the DPT because of community objections Batang which is not included in the voters list. "Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument is unproven and unreasonable law," he explained.

Petitioner argues Batang Regent had abused its authority by melt Assistance Accelerated Rural Development (BP3D) adjacent to a favorable vote on Candidate Pair Number 2 so that the Candidate No. 2 won by a landslide in all polling stations in the Village of Bull. According to the Court, continued Sodiki, Petitioners’ argument is not proved by evidence sufficient to convince the Court. "Moreover, if there is any violation as argued by the Petitioner, quod non, the violation is not an offense that is structured, systematic, and massive, thus affecting the ranking of candidates votes. Therefore, Petitioners’ argument that the Court is not proven and unreasonable law, "he explained.

Petitioner’s argument about the existence of other violations were not proven by convincing evidence that another violation occurred in a structured, systematic and massive that significantly affects the applicant votes. Therefore, according to the Court, the argument was not proven and unwarranted by law. "The entire set of facts the trial as described above, according to the Court violations argued by the Applicant if any, quod non, not proven to be structured, systematic, and massive, and did not significantly affect the results of which determine the desirability Election candidates, so that the petition not proven legally, "he said.

Therefore, the conclusion was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, the Court finds Petitioner has the legal standing to file the petition a quo and the petition was filed within the period specified.” Respondent Exception was unreasonable. Principal Petition is groundless law, "said Mahfud. (Lulu Anjarsari/

Wednesday, January 18, 2012 | 11:13 WIB 171