Court Granted Dispute of Election Result of Puncak Jaya District Partly
Image


The Constitutional Court ruled on the sidelines in Case No. 39/PHPU.DX/2012 disputes concerning election results of the head of Puncak Jaya regency, Friday (6/7) morning. "To grant the petition in part," said Achmad Sodiki which acts as the Chairman of the Plenary Session of Reading Award.

"Ordered Election Commission Puncak Jaya district to vote again Election of Regional Head and Deputy Head of Puncak Jaya regency in six villages in Mewoluk District, namely Glibe village, Gumbru village, Kililumo village, Lumo village, Mewoluk village, and Mewud village to include three pairs of candidates, "continued Sodiki. "Reporting the implementation of this verdict no later than 90 (ninety) days after the verdict is pronounced."

Three candidates are Sendius Candidate Wonda and Yorin Karoba; Candidate Wonda Henok Ibo and Justus; and Candidate Agus Kogoya and Jacob Enumbi.

Court’s opinion, this decision aims to restore the citizens’ constitutional rights in the General Election and to ensure the votes of each candidate in the District Mewoluk. "Respondent must be able to ascertain the number of eligible voters (DPT) in the six villages prior to the implementation of re-vote," wrote the Court in its decision.

According to the Court, in this case, the Respondent as the organizer cannot polarize the General Election ballot based on customary law (with the agreement noken system) and the voting by a written agreement after the agreement with noken system. Because, the voting mechanism based on the agreement was based on customary law applicable in the local area. The selection by the agreement (noken system) has also been in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 47-81/PHPU.A-VII/2009.

In addition, the Court has also observe evidence of P-3 = evidence of T-2 is Official Vote Count Recapitulation of Results General Election of Regional Head and Deputy Head of Puncak Jaya district by the Election Commission of Puncak Jaya regency, dated June 11, 2012. Where the Court finds that Respondent’s legal facts include the entire District Mewoluk voice sounds just as much as 14 394 for Candidate Pair Number 2, while in fact in the District Mewoluk Candidate Pair Number 1 and Number 3 is also getting votes.

According to the Court, based on these facts, the Respondent cannot remove, eliminate, and abolish the right to vote, because the constitutional rights of the sovereign people as guaranteed in Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. "Respondent also can not violate rights guaranteed every citizen is selected and choose a country which is constitutionally guaranteed [vide No. 011-017/PUU-I/2003 Decision dated February 24, 2004 and Decision No. 102/PUUVII/2009 dated July 6, 2009]. Neither the Respondent must not violate the unity of the recognition nor protection of indigenous peoples and their traditional rights guaranteed in Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution, "said the Court.


Saturday, July 07, 2012 | 12:14 WIB 127