The second follow-up session of the General Election Dispute case (PHPU) Regional Head and Deputy Head of Sorong, Papua, held today, Thursday (12/4).The second trial was led by Chairman of the Panel Session and Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK), Moh. Mahfud MD hearing The Sorong City Commission related arguments and 16/PHPU.DX/2012 15/PHPU.DX/2012 applicant. In reply, the Sorong Commission dismissed all charges expressed by Applicant 15 or 16.

Through the Commission attorney Sorong, Budi Setyanto convey denials it to 15 charges of first applicant, which is associated with the Petitioner’s argument that 15 states in making stages of the program, the Commission did not follow the Sorong City KPU Regulation No. 9 of 2010. Budi said the argument asserts that it is not true.

"The argument that is not true and false because the Respondent (KPU Sorong, red) are always based on the provisions of Commission Regulation No. 9 of 2010, which is an improvement of the Commission Regulation Number 62 Year 2009 on Guidelines for Preparation Stages of Program Implementation Schedule and Election of Regional Head and Deputy Head of the Region. The ruling, in the decree No. 14 is not listed, just a technical error in making the letter and not a deliberate decision of the Respondent not to include in the regulations, particularly in the preamble and all provisions contained in Commission Regulation No. 9 of 2010 was also have all carried out by the Respondent, "said Budi.

Furthermore Budi also denied that it allowed the Candidate Pair Number 3 in cooperation with the head of civil service by using your e-ID cards as the basis in determining the election list Temporary (DPS) and the Selection List (DPT) by KPU Sorong. "Respondent’s use of DP-4 is transferred from the city government, in this case the official residence which was then developed and then validated, then updated, DPS made first, and then updated by the PPS. And the result then, defined as the DPS and DPT, "said Budi.

Budi also asserts that the Sorong Commission establishes in five pairs of candidates are in accordance with procedures and regulations or legal procedures through administrative verification and strict factual, not as alleged Petitioner 15.

The same is done by the Parties to the Commission shoves against the arguments of the Petitioner 16, all denied. In fact, Budi told the panel of judges who are Maria Farida Indrati, Anwar Usman and 16 that the Applicant has tried to lead the perception of the Constitutional Court judges by developing opinion based on assumptions that are based on a distortion of the true facts.

Aloud, Budi also stated that it sees that the applicant is 16 just to make the scenario associated with the list of voters as if set out in engineering, the addition of the polls as if that violates the rules, the use of constitutional rights as if not executed, the protection and enforcement about democracy in the election law that seems even a crisis, and not run the implementation of PPD KPU plenary Sorong city that seems to ignore the objections of the Petitioner and Panwaslu Sorong.

Budi said it was related to Petitioner’s argument 16 that stated at the time of taking ballot boxes to do the recapitulation of Sorong Panwaslu Party was not invited. "Supervisory Committee are invited and in fact attended by one member of the Supervisory Committee, Supervisory Committee members were present but refused to sign the Minutes as ordered by the Chairman of Panwasiukada Sorong to not attend the Plenary Summary of the PPD. Under this condition, then the question is why the Chairman of Panwasiukada Sorong instructed its members not be present in the recapitulation? This can be interpreted in the siding of Panwaslukada Sorong, "Budi accusations. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)