Unproven, Singkawang Election Dispute Rejected
Image


Found no evidence to corroborate the argument regarding the violations were systematic, structured, and massive, the Constitutional Court rejected for the entire election petition dispute Regional Head and Deputy Head Singkawang, West Kalimantan Province. Decisions Number 69/PHPU.DX/2012 was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. He is assisted by eight other constitutional judges.

"Passing, stating the exception, rejected the Respondent's exception and the exception Related Parties. the principal issue, rejected the petition to all, "said Mahfud read the verdict petition filed by the couple number three, Hasan Karman and Ahyadi it.

In the opinion of the Court that the Constitution was read by Judge M. Akil Mochtar, explained that the Court did not find convincing evidence that a violation has occurred structured, systematic, and massive in the organization of the General Election Singkawang. If there are any violations, then it is only sporadic, unstructured and massive, and does not significantly affect the ranking of candidates the vote, so the sound goes beyond voting Petitioners Related Parties. "Against Petitioners' arguments apart and the rest of the arguments that have been considered, according to the Court, the arguments are not substantiated by valid evidence and convincing legally," explained Akil.

In addition, the subject petition, the Petitioner argues that the Respondent has committed an offense before the vote by way of updating data and manipulate voter lists unilaterally, Respondent has committed an offense before the vote by way of deliberately speeding plenary stage recapitulation of votes to make a schedule tight, the Respondent has committed an offense before the vote by removing the voting rights of citizens, especially those of Chinese descent who will choose the applicant, the Related Parties have committed the offense before the vote by way of intimidation and involving civil servants. However, continued Akil, during the trial, Petitioner cannot prove their arguments. "Therefore, Petitioners' argument that the other shall be declared is unproven in front of law. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court petition is unproven and unreasonable law," said Akil. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)


Friday, October 19, 2012 | 09:10 WIB 144