Assembly Constitutional Court refused to decide the case entirely PHPU West Aceh District - Case No. 28/PHPU.D-X/2012. "Verdict hearing, stated in the demurrer, rejects the Respondent Parties and Related Parties exception. The Principal Case, refused the petition in its entirety," it read by Mahfud MD accompanied by other constitutional judges, Wednesday (16/5) afternoon in Constitutional Court (MK).

Considering the exception of the Respondent and the Related Party II on the Petitioner has no legal status and changes in the formal application for disability due to incomplete initial petition was signed by the candidate. Court considered, the petition of the candidate pair together can do, given the arguments put forward concerning violations of the General Election of 2012 West Aceh district that is structured, systematic and massive.

Incomplete petition signatures in the initial petition, the Court may still require Applicants to supplement and improve the initial request includes incomplete of procuration as presented in court May 3, 2012.

In addition, incomplete signature candidates in the initial solicitation, does not mean eliminating the chance of other candidates who joined within the same application to apply. Thus, the Court reasoned exception is not legal.

Furthermore, the Court gave opinions on the Petitioner's argument that the Respondent intentionally did not carry out the requirements and procedures for legitimate and not legitimate ballots are punched by the voter. Including the matter in his reply denied the Respondent a quo Petitioner's argument by suggesting that either directly or through the PPK and PPS, the Respondent has been repeatedly associated with the implementation of the socialization of West Aceh Election through forum meetings and socialization through banners, billboards, billboards, brochures, and media mass.

Court judge, the Petitioners' argument does not show any significance to the results of the vote each candidate and do not indicate a violation that is structured and massive, so it is not unreasonable law.

Court on Petitioner also argues that the Related Party I intimidated by damaging vehicle operation successful team candidate pair number 13 (Applicant) and the politics of money by the Related Party Related Party I and II. Furthermore, the Related Party Related Party I and II in his statement denied Petitioner a quo. To the Petitioners' argument, the Court considered that, Even if true events that argued by the Petitioners, these events are sporadic and not merely to convince the Court that there has been a violation of the General Election in a structured, systematic and massive. Thus, a quo Petitioners' argument is unfounded. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh/Yazid.tr)