Court granted all Petitions of Dispute of Election Result of Dogiyai District

The Constitutional Court (MK) grants the petition of Dispute of Election Result (PHPU) Dogiyai District 2012 - Case Number 3/PHPU.DX/2012 - in a trial verdict on Monday (6/8) afternoon at the Court Courtroom. "Verdict, judgment, granted the petition to declare the whole," the decision of the Constitutional Judges.

The Court also set the combined results of the vote each candidate in the ballot again 2 April 2012 and a vote on January 9, 2012 General Election District Dogiyai 2012 as follows: Candidate Pair Number 1 on behalf of Drs. Thomas Tigi and Herman Auwe, S.Sos acquire 28 155 (twenty-eight thousand one hundred fifty five) votes; Candidate Number 2 on behalf of Drs. Anthon Iyowau and Clara Apapa Gobay acquire 21 952 (twenty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty two) votes.

In addition the Court set a Candidate Number 3 in the name of Natalis Degei, S.Sos.-Esau Magay, S.IP acquire 26.463 (twenty six thousand four hundred sixty three) votes; and ordered the Election Commission to implement this decision of Dogiyai District, and reject objections Candidate Number 2 on behalf of Drs. Anthon Iyowau and Clara Apapa Gobay.

Before dropping the injunction, the Court gave the opinion the objection related to candidate number two. Among other things, the applicant votes, which in 1137 amounted Deniode village voice, voice of Egipa village totaled 843 Piyaiye District diverted by the PPD to the Candidate Pair Number 1 (Applicant), and in Kampung Ukagu of 200 votes transferred by the PPD to the Candidate Number Sort 3 (Related Parties).

In addition, according to candidate number two, the Related Parties make money politics to the people in Kampung Idedua, Ukagu Village, Village Yegeiyepa, and Kampung Deneiode, thus causing the sound Candidate Number 2 as much as 2272 voice switch to Related Parties. Based on this, should vote for Candidate Pair Number 2 in the polls again in eight villages Piyaiye District totaled 4998 votes.

Objection to the candidate pair number 2 above, the Court a quo argument is not proven by the evidence that convinced the Court as witnesses and written evidence / papers submitted by the candidate pair number 2 did not provide statement or prove the existence of money politics by the Related Parties, the transfer of votes candidate pair number 2 by PPD Piyaiye District and Respondent to the Applicant and Related Parties.

Even if witness number 2 candidates named Vincent Tebay provide information on money politics by the Related Parties, but money politics is related to the signing of the minutes of sound in level KPU recapitulation Dogiyai Naomi Coast. Similarly, evidence PC.II-5 in the form of signatures to support the Candidate Pair Number 2 and evidence of your PC. II-6 in the form of pictures of money, according to the Court the evidence is not convincing to prove the truth of the proposition a quo. Based on the assessment of facts and law, the Court argued objections Candidate Number 2 are not unreasonable under the law. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh/

Wednesday, August 08, 2012 | 21:39 WIB 120