The Constitutional Court (MK) has finally decided the case PHPU North Hulu Sungai District 2012: reject the entire petition (Case No. 51/PHPU. DX/2012) and decide the petition cannot be accepted (Case No. 50/PHPU.DX/2012). Chairman of the Plenary Mahfud MD said that. He was accompanied by other constitutional judge’s verdict in the trial Court on Thursday (2/8) afternoon.

Case No. on. 51, on the petition, the Respondent and the Related Parties in a written answer has been filed exceptions essentially stated that the petition does not meet the formal requirements for the petition is signed by the attorney of the Petitioner, the Petitioner's petition had passed the time limit prescribed by the legislation which apply.

In addition, the Court is not the authority of the Court petition because it is not related to the General Election vote count conducted by the Respondent. 

Petitioners 'argument against it, the Related Party and the state denied the Petitioners' arguments are not true and making it up, because of the Related Parties do not ever use the apparatus of government and civil servants during the campaign period the Upper North River District Election of 2012. To prove the theorem Related Parties submit rebuttal evidence, the letter / article marked as evidence and proof PT-5 PT-5A, but did not call witnesses.

After the Court's review and examine the Petitioners 'argument and rebuttal argument of the Related Party and the evidence submitted by the Applicant and Related Parties, the Court, Petitioners' argument there is no evidence to convince the Court that occur when the implementation of Election. Therefore, the Court, Petitioners' argument is unproven and unreasonable laws.

"Judgment, hearing, stating, in a demurrer, rejects the Respondent and the Related Parties. In the main application, reject the petition in its entirety," said Mahfud MD.

While on Case No. 50, the Court believes that the object being applied for cancellation by the applicant is 21 Minutes Number of Results Verification of Candidate Administration, dated 30 April 2012, instead of the Minutes of the Recapitulation of Vote Count Result of General Election of Regional Head and Deputy head of the Regional At the level of District / City By the Commission Electoral District / City.

That the hearing on July 24, 2012, the Applicant has repaired his petition, yet still make the Petitioner in his petition No. 21 of the Minutes of the Results Verification of Candidate Administration, dated 30 April 2012 as the application object instead of the Minutes of the Recapitulation of Vote Count Result of General Election of Regional Head and Deputy At the head of the Regional District Level / City by the District Election Commission / City.

Based on the above considerations, the Court reasoned legal exception Related Party. Therefore, one object the petition, the Court did not consider the applicant's legal standing, the petition filing period, and the main petition. "Conclusions, based on an assessment of the facts and law as described above, the Court concluded that the law reasoned exception of the Related Party, the object of the petition and the Court has no authority to either judgment. Injunction, the petition is not acceptable," said Mahfud. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh/Yazid.tr)