From the standpoint of the administration of state law, if any stages of the election is exceeded, then there is a change of schedule set, then it can be regarded as an act of unauthorized and unlawful. It is delivered by the Constitutional Law expert Yusril Ihza Mahendra while attending the trial continued dispute the election results Tolikara District on Thursday (10/5). Candidate pair number 2 John Tabo-Hedi Suyanto recorded a petition in case number 34/PHPU.DX/2012.

"One step of the overall enrollment including candidate registration deadline is not met in the repair or replacement of the prospective spouse’s name or one of them then it is accepted and approved by the Election Commission, the action can be categorized as actions that violate laws and regulations," Yusril clear before the judges of the Constitutional Court is headed by Deputy Chief Justice Achmad Sodiki.

In this regard, the Election Commission Yusril adding such action, made by the Election Commission Election held invalid because it was followed by a couple who are not legitimate. This illegality may affect the General Election is concerned to assess whether the General Election is not legitimate or otherwise. "So it is necessary to repeat steps Election. Assessment of the decision problem, the full authority of the Constitutional Court, "he explained.

Yusril explained, the procedure candidates have been provided for in Article 59 and Article 60 in Law no. 32/2004 as amended in Act 12/2008 on Regional Government. Election candidates in the stages of the nomination of both political parties and individual candidates shall report to the Commission along with the completeness of the requirements established in compliance with applicable law. "Matters relating to the validity of the candidate pairs in the General Election is still entitled to be tried and sentenced by the Court, because it is a series of Election. Constitutionality and validity can be assessed by the constitution, "he said.

In this trial, the Petitioner revealed the presence of three false witnesses presented by the Respondent in the previous session. The third witness is false, ie, Endi Erelang, Yilus Pinggo, and Derry Mushikwa. "There was testimony that forged by the Respondent in the previous session, the Chairman of the District of unin Wesir Wanimbo PPD, but the present is Enji Erelang. Then, Chairman of the District Bokoneri PPD who attended the trial as the Chairman of the Psalms Enambere PPD, but the present is Yilus Pinggo staff. There is also of Leonardo Wanimbo Nelawi District, but the attendance was Derry Mushikwa. We present the third chairman in the district please be clarified.

In response, Chief Justice Achmad Sodiki explains the existence of a letter that explains the chairman of PPD representatives to the Constitutional Court in the district."However, if the applicant feels it is a false testimony, then it becomes the authority of the police," he explained.

The witnesses present at the hearing of the Related Party are denied all the arguments which the applicant disclosed the violations to the Related Parties get affirmative vote.

In the main petition, the Petitioner was represented by legal counsel, Arie Pujiyanto, et al; disclose it objected to the recapitulation result issued by the Commission as a party Respondent of Tolikara District. Arie explains interim successor should the Commission do not re-verified candidates who passed the number 1 candidate, Amos Djikwa Wanimbo Usman (Related Parties). Petitioner also argued that the fraud committed by the Related Parties so that the absolute votes in some districts. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)