Two Requests of Dispute of Election Result of Lubuk Linggau City Unacceptable and Rejected

The Constitutional Court (MK) has finally decided to petition of dispute of election result of Lubuk Linggau 2012 - Case No. 83 and 84/PHPU.DX/2012 - can not be accepted and rejected entirely. Hence the decision in the Constitutional court judges verdict, Thursday (22/11) against Candidate petition no. 4 Akisropi-Akmaludin Moestofa (Case No. 83) and Candidate No. 5 Rustam Efendi-Irwan Effendi (Case No. 84).

Against the Applicant Case No. petition. 83 who pleaded that the Court set a ballot that has been used by the voters was declared invalid and declared null and void at least do not have the force of law with all its consequences. According to the Court, such is the power to establish judicial authority other than the authority of the Court.

Based on the foregoing considerations, the object of the petition, either in the petition or application is posita the vote tally, which was not pleaded by the Respondent of vote counting results according Minutes Summary of Results Count Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in The City by KPU Lubuklinggau , dated October 25, 2012 shall be canceled.

"According to the Court, the petition is not the object of the petition under the authority of the Court, so that the Court has no authority to hear the petition. Based on the above considerations, the Court is Respondent’s exception that the Court has no authority to hear the petition a quo, legally unreasonable," Judge explained.

"The ruling judge, said in an exception, granted Respondent’s exception. In principal the petition, the petition can not be accepted," the Chairman of the Plenary Mahfud MD firmly said.

Meanwhile, Petitioner Case 84 which postulates Abdullah chose two times, namely in TPS 1 and TPS 2 Majapahit Village, District East Lubuklinggau I, and the witness did not get the TPS objection form. To prove their argument Petitioner filed a proof of letters / words marked P-45 and P-91 in the form of an affidavit and witness Benny Yunarsis. Petitioner and Respondent deny Petitioner argues that assumptive nature.

Petitioners’ argument against it, because the Respondent did not prove the denial, the Court considers it true that Abdullah chose two times at different polling stations. However, there is no evidence that Abdullah chose twice to number 3 candidate or other candidates that could harm the Petitioner. Based on these considerations, the Court is Petitioner has not been proven according to law.

Meanwhile Related Party essentially denied Petitioner. In order to prove Related Party filed a rebuttal witness Abdul Majid. Against these arguments, Petitioner simply prove with written evidence in the form of an affidavit Abdul Sai, but denied PPK North Lubuklinggau I members and witnesses who testified Abdul Majid no double punched ballots at polling stations 1 Belalau Village II. Because Petitioner filed an affidavit only without asking who made the statement to be heard under oath, while the Respondent and their respective Related Parties filed a witness who gave testimony under oath.

Based on these considerations, the Court is Petitioner has not been proven according to law. "Rejecting the petition for all," the judges dropped the Case No.. 84. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh/

Thursday, November 22, 2012 | 17:59 WIB 123