Five candidate’s regent / deputy regent Pati, Central Java, who apply for re-polling disputes (PSU) regional head elections (election) Pati District, held last June 16, 2012, must be compliant to accept defeat in the PSU. The Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (7/23/2012) afternoon, the final verdict that rejected all their requests.

"Refusing the application applicant for all," said Moh. Mahfud MD pronounced the verdict in the trial in order to 44/PHPU.DX/2012 Number decision. 

Slamet Warsito-Sri Mulyani took the argument about the potential damage caused by ballot design changes that cause the ballot papers declared invalid, thereby potentially harming the acquisition of vote. Toward this case, the Court’s Decision Number 44/PHPU.DX/2012 hold on the data presented the National Election Commission (KPU) Pati District as defendant. KPU Pati data says invalid ballots in the General Election PSU Starch amounted to 2.59% or 18 094 votes. According to the Court, If the argument is true, but in reality the difference in votes between candidates who obtained the most votes the first and the second highest number reached 27 428 votes. So that ballots are not valid if it is assumed to be owned by one spouse candidates rank 2, 3, 4, or 5, will not significantly affect the vote ranking candidates. Thus the Court, Petitioners’ argument is unfounded according to law.

While the couple argued Imam Suroso- Sujoko stakeholder partner Haryanto-Budiyono offense before and on polling day in the form of money politics, black campaign and / or covert campaign, involving the bureaucracy, mass mobilization. According to the Court in ruling No. No. 45/PHPU.DX/2012, the evidence submitted Imam Suroso-Sujoko form before a notary public witness statements and testimony at trial did not prove the involvement of government bureaucracy to win Haryanto-Budiyono. Even if there is money politics, the intimidation, the involvement of the bureaucracy, and mass mobilization for the award of Haryanto-Budiyono, it is not done structured, systematic and massive, but only individually and not shown to be associated with Haryanto-Budiyono. Based on the assessment and the facts, the Court found the argument of Imam Suroso-Sujoko unproven and unwarranted by law.

Furthermore the Court’s opinion in a decision filed by No. 46/PHPU.DX/2012 Sri Merditomo-Karsidi pair. Court stated that the arguments of the petition Sri Merditomo-Karsidi essentially the same as the arguments put forward by the Imam Suroso-Sujoko. Thus, the Court’s opinion in a case filed Imam Suroso-Sujoko, mutatis mutandis also apply to the arguments put forward by the Sri Merditomo-Karsidi.

Likewise with all that the couple argued Sri Susahid-Hasan (No. 47/PHPU.DX/2012), Kartina Sukawati-Supeno (No. 48/PHPU.DX/2012). According to the Court, the substance of the petition Sri Susahid-Hasan with Imam Suroso-Sujoko request, Sri Merditomo-Karsidi, and application of Kartina Sukawati-Supeno. In fact there are similarities of editorial request of Sri Susahid-Hasan with Sri Merditomo-Karsid and Kartina Sukawati-Supeno. Differences in application-Hasan with Susahid Sri Sri Merditomo-Karsidi application on just one argument, namely the arguments of money politics.

Court’s injunction, in addition to reject the entire petition the fifth pair, the Court also rejects the claim Pati Regency as the defendant and exception of Haryanto-Budiyono as related parties. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)