The trial case of petition for the election of regional heads Deiyai District has been decided by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (22/5) afternoon, at the Plenary Court courtroom. There are five Petitioners in this case, namely Case No. 29/PHPU.DX/2012, 30/PHPU.DX/2012, 31/PHPU.DX/2012, 32/PHPU.DX/2012, and 33/PHPU.DX/2012.

Each applicant based on the case number is a Future Candidate David Amos Edoway-Pekei (Case No. 29/PHPU.DX/2012); Candidate Pair Number 8 Januarius L. Linus Dou-Doo (30/PHPU.DX/2012); Candidate Pair Number 7, Manfred Clement Ukago Mote (31/PHPU.DX/2012); Future Candidate John Yohanis Pigome-Yohanis Dogopial (32/PHPU.DX / 2012), and No Candidate. Sort 2-Amision Marthen Ukago Mote, No Candidate. Sort 3-Athen Pigai Kotouki Manase, and No Candidate. Sort 4 Yan-Yakonias Giyai Adii (33/PHPU.DX/2012).

Court gave verdict that differs between cases, where for Case No. 31 and 32, otherwise rejected. As for the other three cases, namely Case No. 29, 30, and 33 the Court declared the application is not acceptable.

In case No. 29, according to the Court, the applicant has no legal standing to file the petition. Because, after examining the evidence presented, the Petitioner does not really qualify as a candidate in the Election District Deiyai 2012.

"Whereas, without considering whether or not the proposal of legitimate political party that is given to the applicant, the fact that the Indonesian Youth Party did not propose the Petitioner, the Petitioner has clearly resulted in unqualified support of at least 15% of the vote. Thus, according to the Court, substantially, the issuance of Decree No. 02 Deiyai Regency Year 2012 has been preceded by factual verification to parties proposing candidates, including the verification of the factual to the DPP Youth Party of Indonesia, "wrote the Court in its legal considerations.”Therefore, Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing) to file the petition a quo."

No Case Against. 30, the Court argued, the Applicant has one object. According to the Court, the object is not a matter that should be filed as argued by the Applicant. "Based on the assessment of facts and law, the Court argued that the petition objects one object," said Court.

While for Case No. 33, the Court considers the petition has passed the deadline for submission of the case. "Petition of the Petitioners have exceeded the limit for filing the petition."

As to two other requests, the Court rejected the petition of the Petitioner states as the arguments of the Petitioner did not prove legal and reasonable. The Court argued violations by the applicant is not proven, and if any, are not structured, systematic and massive, and did not significantly affect the outcome of the vote in the General Election which determines candidate electability.

"Based on the legal facts are proven in court discovered the error or offense committed by the Respondent, but the error or violation is not significant to be able to cancel the results of Election especially those violations also proved by the Respondent. The occurrence of sporadic violations committed by all parties and that these massive unstructured and cannot undo the results of the General Election but still can be processed to the general court. Therefore, in the context of the validity of the District Election Deiyai arguments petition is groundless and not proven according to law, "said the Court in one of his legal opinion. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)