The Constitutional Court (MK) has finally decided the case PHPU Gayo Lues Regency-Case No. 2012. 36/PHPU.D-X/2012 - is unacceptable. Similarly, the judges decided the Constitution in the trial verdict, Monday (4/6) afternoon at the Plenary Court Room. "Amar ruling stated, the petition is not acceptable," said Chairman of the Plenary Mahfud MD was accompanied by other constitutional judges. Court’s opinion, although the applicant has made improvements petition, but the applicant still question the decision of the Independent Commission District No. Gayo Lues. 

Determination of Candidate 270/0505/KIP/2012 Regent / Vice Regent Election Results Elected Regent / Vice Regent Gayo Lues, 2012, dated May 3, 2012 in conjunction with the Minutes of the Independent Commission District No. Gayo Lues. Candidate Determination of 270/0504/2012 on Regent / Vice Regent Election Elected Regent / Vice Regent Gayo Lues Regency, 2012, dated May 3, 2012. "Thus, instead of the Minutes of the General Election of Regent / Vice Regent at District Level by the Independent Election Commission District. 

This was conveyed by the judges, "said the judges. According to the Court, with reference to the provisions of Article 4 of PMK No. 15/2008 which states, "The object of dispute Election vote count is set by the Respondent ...", then in case a quo that the object of the petition should be the Official Election Regent / Vice Regent At the level of Gayo Lues Regency by the Independent Commission District election. 

Then the object of dispute in the General Election, the Court in Decision No. 23/PHPU.D-VIII/2010, dated June 3, 2010, Decision No. 29/PHPU.D-VIII/2010, dated June 21, 2010, Decision No. 43/PHPU.D-VIII/2010, dated July 7, 2010, Decision No. 49/PHPU.D-VIII/2010, dated July 8, 2010, Decision No. 60/PHPU.D-VIII/2010, dated July 15, 2010, and Decision No. 74/PHPU.D-VIII/2010, dated July 26, 2010, has declared object of dispute is the General Election Electoral Commission decision regarding the determination of voting results, not the determination of candidates elected. 

Court affirms the trial judge not only the vote tally or numbers, but also judge the process of implementing a then generate the numbers or results of the vote each candidate. But the dispute remains must-shaped object "decision" Electoral Commission or the Independent Election Commission on voting results. 

Based on the whole description of the above considerations, the Court argued, the petition does not meet the requirement of the request referred to in Article 106 paragraph (2) Law no. 32/2004 as last amended by Act no. 12/2008 and Article 4 of PMK No. 15/2008. Court’s opinion, because the petition was wrong object, then an exception is reasonable under the laws of the Related Party. Therefore, Respondent’s other exceptions, as well as the Petitioner’s legal standing, a grace period for submission of application and the purpose thereof is not considered. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh/Yazid.tr)