Dispute of Election Result of Pati Regency: Ballot Master of Re-voting Signed by Candidates

Dispute over the re-voting (PSU) results of Pati regency, Central Java Province was held on June 16, 2012 and then, re-examined at the hearing of the Constitutional Court (MK), Thursday (07/12/2012) afternoon. Trial a second time for the combined case filed five pairs of candidates: Slamet Warsito-Sri Mulyani (44/PHPU.DX/2012 case), Imam Suroso-Sujoko (45/PHPU.DX/2012 case), H. Sri Merditomo-H. Karsidi (46/PHPU.DX/2012 case), Sri Susahid-Hasan (47/PHPU.DX/2012 case), and the couple Hj. Kartika Sukawati - H. Supeno (48/PHPU.DX/2012 case), listening to the answers General Election Commission (KPU) of Pati District (Respondent) and the description of Haryanto-Budiyono (Related Parties), and examination of witnesses.

In the presence of Constitutional Justice Achmad Sodiki Panel (Panel Chair), Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, and Harjono, Pati Commission through its legal counsel, Mubassirin, denied the Petitioners’ argument that states do not implement Pati Commission is the ruling of the Constitutional Court regarding the implementation of the PSU within 90 days? "It is unfounded because the fact is there is no injunction of the Court ruling that ordered the Respondent to carry out the PSU within 90 days from the decision of the Court Number 82/PHPU.D-IX/2011 being read," said Mubassirin.

Mubassirin further explained about the delay in the implementation of the PSU until June 16, 2012 due to the discussion and determination of thes Pati regency budget. Pati also affirmed the Commission has sent a proposal to parliament delays PSU Pati, forwarded to the Governor of Central Java. "Central Java Governor in accordance with Article 149 paragraph (4) PP 17/2005 PSU next to the Minister proposes delay. Thus we conclude from the fact that the provisions of Article 149 paragraph (4) PP 17 2005 has been implemented by the Respondent, "said Mubassirin.

Pati Commission was also presented rebuttal responding to Petitioner’s argument that states Pati Commission using an invalid ballot. Pati KPU insists there is absolutely no element of intent to change the ballot. Before the printing process, the master has requested approval of ballot papers to candidates. Pati also stated the Commission agreed candidates has confirmed the signature on the master ballot.

Before the ballots were used, further Mubassirin, Pati Commission has conducted socialization to PPK and PPS in order to open up the ballot papers prior to submission to the voters to ensure that voters’ ballots received in good condition and undamaged. "It is intended to avoid any damaged ballots are likely to be used by voters," added Mubassirin.

Therefore, Pati Commission asked the Court to receive a Pati Commission reply, while rejecting the petition of the Petitioner. "Based on the answers above, we request in our reply to the Court issued a decision which contains an exception accept the Respondent, the Respondent argued express exception of law, and further that the Court rejected the petition in its entirety," pleaded Mubassirin.

Meanwhile, Haryanto-Budiyono as Related Parties, through their attorney, Nurcahyo EP, Petitioner stated in the petition did not mention the description of the results of vote counting errors as required by Article 4 and Article 6 paragraph (2) letter b of the Constitutional Court Regulation Number 15/2008. "We declare that the petition was obscuur libel and asked that it cannot be accepted," pleaded Nurcahyo. (Rosihin Nur Ana/Yazid.tr)

Friday, July 13, 2012 | 18:23 WIB 137