Dispute of Election Result of Aceh Tamiang: Not Quite Convincing Evidence, Court Rejects Petition
Image


Dispute of Election Result of Aceh Tamiang Round II 2012 - Case No. 63/PHPU.DX/2012 - led to the rejection of the petition by the Constitutional Court (MK).

Verdict in a trial which took place on Thursday (11/10) afternoon, the Court considered the evidence presented by the parties is not sufficiently convincing. Moreover, the evidence and other witness testimony describing the possibility of administrative and criminal violations, the Court considers that case only allegations only sporadic violations.

Petitioner argues that the Respondent including Hamdan graduated Sati as a Related Party, the literacy test tests the Qur'an, when Hamdan Sati was not able to read the Al-Quran (attached evidence of Statement of H. Awalauddin in the trial).

To deny Petitioner a quo, the Respondent filed a witness Drs. Umar Nafi, M. Pd (Chairman of the Board of Judges Team Test Able Reading Al-Quran) which essentially stated, Hamdan Sati had passed and was able to read the Quran based on the assessment that has been standardized with reference to the valuation of recitation, fashahah, and adab ( attached evidence of the Decree of the Aceh Independent Election Commission Technical Guidance Ability Test Reading Al-Quran and the Decree / Description) regarding the results of the test were able to read Al-Quran).

"Based on the evidence that has been filed by the parties, the Court did not find convincing evidence that Hamdan Sati does not qualify as a candidate for the head area," said the Court.

Further to the evidence and other witness testimony describing the possible violation of administrative and criminal, the Court considered, so it is just allegations sporadic violations per se, does not indicate the offense is structured, systematic and massive affect ranking the vote of each candidate, so that the law should be declared unfounded.

"Based on the above considerations, the Court, Petitioner's arguments are not proven according to law," the Court said.

Based on the assessment of the facts and the law as explained above, the Court concludes that the Court has jurisdiction over the petition; applicant has legal status (legal standing) to apply for a quo; Petition Petitioner was filed within the time specified by the legislation; Exception Respondent is unfounded and unwarranted legal; Arguments Petitioner did not prove by law for all.

"The ruling judges, said in an exception: reject the Respondent's exception. In the principal application: to completely reject the petition," said Achmad Sodiki. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Yazid.tr)


Friday, October 12, 2012 | 10:40 WIB 103