Candidate Andar Amin Harahap and Muhammad Isnandar Nasution (AMIN) can finally pitch a mayor and deputy mayor of the city of Padang Sidimpuan, North Sumatra in 2012, the Constitutional Court (MK) in its decision rejected the Candidate Dedi Jaminsyah Putra and Affan Siregar as Petitioner for entirely.

"Passing, stating: In principal request: Rejecting the petition for all," said Moh. Mahfud MD in dispute ruling heads of local election results of Padang Sidimpuan 2012 - Case No. 85/PHPU.DX/2012- in space Plenary Court, on Thursday (22/11).

According to the Court, voter registration is actually not only the obligation of the Respondent or election organizers alone, but also the duty of Government to provide demographic data, as well as Panwaslukada role in overseeing the implementation phase to match voter registration laws.

Nevertheless, the problem DPT Petitioner argued, the Court considered that there was no convincing evidence of the real amount of the addition or subtraction of unauthorized sound. "Moreover, even if Petitioner could prove the real amount of the addition or subtraction of votes in the General Election of Padang Sidimpuan, Petitioner still can not point to a shift in the number of candidates which sounds either addition or subtraction has occurred," said the Court. "Therefore, the Petitioner a quo has not been proven according to law."

Petitioner also revealed that the Mayor of Padang Sidimpuan their staffs ranging from assistant, working unit heads, district, village heads / heads up to the head of the village / hamlet and civil government of Padang Sidimpuan a structured, systematic and massive active winning the Related Parties. To these problems, the Court found no convincing evidence the existence of an order from Padangsidimpuan mayor and his staff a structured, systematic and massive to win a pair of the Related Party. 

On the other hand, the Petitioner also argues that the officers command of Padang Sidempuan to PPS and KPPS as Election officials, to win a pair of the Related Party. But after looking at the evidence of the parties, the Court found no evidence that PPK, PPS, and KPPS cheating in the process of recapitulation of vote counting and to win the Related Parties. "Thus, the Petitioner a quo unreasonable law," said the Court.

Meanwhile, with regard to other offenses, according to the Court, Petitioner was unable to convince the Court that the offense occurred in a structured, systematic and massive significantly affect the number of vote’s applicant to exceed the number of votes the Related Parties. "Therefore, the petition is groundless according to law," the Court said. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yz)