Court Denied Dispute of Central Bengkulu Revoting

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the candidate pairs of Regent and Vice Regent of Central Bengkulu Irihadi - M. Wasik Salik. That was the verdict number 6/PHPU.DX/2012 which was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD with other constitution was accompanied by seven judges.

"To declare, in the exception, rejects the Respondent. In the principal case, it rejected the petition in its entirety, "said Mahfud read the verdict on Thursday (15/3), at the Plenary Room.

In the Court's opinion read by the Constitutional Court Zoelva Hamdan, Petitioner argued that the mobilization of civil servants (PNS) and Task Force Officers (SKPD) by the Regent of Bengkulu Utara (Imron Rosyadi) which is a biological uncle Ferry (Related Parties) to campaign and money politics. Court judge, said Hamdan, there is no convincing evidence that there has been a violation of the General Election in a structured, systematic and massive as argued by the Applicant. The evidence submitted by the applicant in the form of a statement is not authentic act that meets the evidentiary value of the perfect, but just a certificate under the hand made and signed by the concerned, which is not expressed at the hearing and / or not made in the presence of officials authorized a common letter are not having strength of evidence unless supported by other evidence.

"Similarly with the other evidence is inconclusive as it can be rebutted by evidence of the Related Parties. In addition, a quo Petitioner did not show any significance with the vote of each candidate and argued infringement if any, are sporadic and partial cannot be proved merely that their effects on voter choice. Thus, Petitioner did not prove a quo, "he explained.

Hamdan said Petitioner argues the Respondent is not professional and not neutral as indicated by the presence of unsealed ballot box, voters have no right to choose, the use of alias names for the pair of candidates, voters can not choose an invitation, not registered voters in the DPT, and props are not intact. Court judge, the evidence submitted by the applicant cannot be assured that there has been a violation of the General Election that is structured, systematic and massive and did not significantly affect the voting results of each candidate. Affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the evidence can not be perfect without the support of other evidence is strong. Similarly, other evidence is actually a more correct proofs submitted by the Respondent.

"Regarding the use of aliases and DPT problem, the Court argued, such cases are both made by the Applicant or Related Party, so the loss can not be determined only experienced by one side only, so it is unknown significance to the results of the vote each candidate . Thus, Petitioner did not prove a quo, "he explained.

Of the evidence and other witness statements that describe possible violations of administrative and criminal, Hamdan said that case the Court considered only the allegations of violations sporadic and do not indicate a violation that is structured, systematic and massive, affecting votes each candidate, so it must be rejected."Considering that based on the above considerations, the Court Petitioners' arguments are not proven according to law," said Hamdan. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)