Petition PHPU Central Aceh District 2012 - Case No. 37/PHPU.D-X/2012 - is unacceptable. Hence the decision was the Constitutional Court (MK) in its verdict in the trial which took place on Tuesday (12/6) afternoon at the Plenary Court Room. The petitioners consisted of Candidate No. 7 Iklil Ilyas Leube-Muhammad Ridwan, No 11 Mahreje Wahab-Nasri Lisma and No. 5 Muslim Ibrahim-Azzama. 

Court to consider, Official Recapitulation of Vote Count Result of General Election Regent and Vice Regent of the Independent Election Commission of Central Aceh district, regardless of the number (dated May 15, 2012) is what should be the object of the petition of the Petitioner as the Respondent (the Independent Election Commission of Central Aceh District) does not Summary of results make the Decree of the General Election Vote Count Regent and Vice Regent of the Independent Election Commission. However, according to the Court, the object of the petition of the Petitioners is mistaken. Because the petition was filed by the official report No. 33/BA/V/2012 Plenary Meeting on Recapitulation of Vote Count Result Open Election of Regent and Vice Regent of Central Aceh Regency KIP Central Aceh District, dated May 15, 2012 and Decision of the Independent Commission of Central Aceh District No. 67/kpts/KIP-AT-001.434492 / 2012 on the Establishment Candidate Regent / Vice Regent Election Results Elected Regent / Vice Regent of Central Aceh Year 2012 dated May 15, 2012. 

That based on the entire description of the above considerations, the Court, the Petitioners’ petition does not meet the requirement of the request referred to in Article 106 paragraph (2) Law no. 32/2004 as last amended by Law 12/2008, Article 4 of PMK 15/2008, and Article 26 paragraph (1) Commission Regulation No. 16 of 2010. Considering that a formal petition of the Petitioner, in this case the object request, do not qualify as referred to in Article 106 paragraph (2) Law no. 32/2004 as last amended by Act no. 12/2008, Article 4 of PMK 15/2008 and Article 26 paragraph (1) Commission Regulation No. 16/2010. "Therefore, the petition of the Petitioners one object," said the judges. Furthermore, the Petitioners’ petition because the object is wrong, then the exception object that suggests Respondent’s petition of the Petitioners either legally groundless. Therefore, Respondent’s other exceptions, as well as the legal status of the applicant, a grace period for submission of application and the purpose thereof is to be considered. 

Based on the assessment of facts and law as described above, the Court concluded: Court authority to hear the petition a quo reasoned legal Respondent Exception: Object Petitioners’ petition erroneous; Exception Related Party unwarranted law; legal status (legal standing) to the Petitioners, the grace period filing of the petition and the petition is not considered essential. "Verdict stated, the petition of the Petitioner is not acceptable," said the Chairman of plenary and concurrent Member, Achmad Sodiki, accompanied by other constitutional judges. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh/Yazid.tr)