The Constitutional Court (MK) refused all requests for dispute Tolikara Election District. Decisions of the petition filed by a candidate pair number 2 John Tabo-Hedi Suyanto read by the Chief Justice MK Moh. Mahfud MD in plenary session on Tuesday (22/5).
"Passing, stated in the demurrer, rejects the Related Parties. In the main application, reject the petition in its entirety," said Mahfud, assisted by six other constitutional judges.
In a legal opinion which was read by Vice-Chairman of the Constitutional Court Sodiki Achmad, the Court found the evidence submitted by the applicant are not relevant to prove the arguments of the Petitioner. "Based on all the foregoing considerations, the Court found no evidence that the Respondent and the Related Parties have committed the offense- violation of a structured, systematic and massive that significantly affect the ranking of votes each candidate. Therefore, all the a quo Petitioners’ argument has not been proven according to law, "he said.
Sodiki said Petitioner argues that the Respondent presented to the various violations in the administration of elections at the level of PPD and Related Party KPPS to win in 27 districts. Based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 47-81/PHPU.A-VII/2009, dated June 9, 2009, the Court understand and appreciate the cultural value of living among the people of Papua are typical in the general elections in a way or a system of "citizen agreements" or " acclamation ". Court, continued Sodiki, adopt collective choice, because if it imposed a general election in accordance with laws and regulations applicable feared would arise conflicts between local community groups. The Court also argues that society should not be involved / taken to the system of competition / divisions within and between groups that could disrupt the harmony that has been internalized. Acceptance of a realistic way is certainly to be implemented well by the organizers or the election committee.
"It has become a fact in the trial that both the Petitioner, Respondent, and Related Party acknowledges the process of" mutual agreement "or" acclamation "by the people in the districts in question by the petition a quo. Jikalaupun Petitioner’s argument that it is true there are some people who do not agree with the choice of the collective agreement, but the applicant does not have sufficient evidence that it is done in a way that the full coercion, intimidation and even the applicant does not have enough evidence. Therefore, the Court a quo Petitioners’ argument has not been proven according to law," said Sodiki.
Petitioner then another, the Court clearly considered not proven according to law.Evidence in the medal of which the Respondent is bubbling sound and eliminates voice of the Related Party Applicant, the determination of changes in the schedule of the General Election is not clear and likely to be forced by the Respondent in order to win the Related Parties, replacement and determination of PPD, PPS, and KPPS not clear and its formation is directed to a victory Related Parties and Related Party should not qualify as Candidate Regent and Vice Regent of 2012. Therefore, the conclusion which was read by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, the Court concluded that the Court has the authority to adjudicate the petition. "The applicant has a legal status (legal standing) to file the petition a quo. Petition was filed within the prescribed time limit. Exception Related Party unreasonable law. Argument of the petition has not been proven according to law, "he explained. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 | 21:06 WIB 143