General Elections Commission (KPU) in Kapuas his exception assessing dispute of election result of Kapuas Election did not meet the formal requirements. Petition filed by Ben Brahim S. Bahat and H. Muhajirin (Ben-Jirin) and H. Surya Dharma and Taufiqurrahman (Surya-Taufiq) did not comply with the provisions of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 15/2008 on proceedings in Dispute Guidelines General Election Article 6 paragraph (2) letter a and b.

According to Kapuas Commission, Ben-Jirin and Surya-Taufiq in posita petition did not explain the error count results announced by the Election Commission Kapuas. Similarly, in the petition, Ben-Jirin was not requesting a ballot which he considered right. "In posita petition, the Petitioner (Ben-Jirin) did not elaborate on the results of vote counting errors announced by the Electoral Commission and the calculation of the correct vote according to Petitioner," said attorney of Kapuas Commission, M. Kharisma P. Harahap constitution before a panel of judges Achmad Sodiki (panel chairman), Harjono, and Anwar Usman, on Wednesday (12.05.12) afternoon panel housed in a lt. 4 building of the Constitutional Court (MK).

The trial of the second dispute Kapuas Election results 2012 with case number 95/PHPU.DX/2012 94/PHPU.DX/2012 to listen to the answers Respondent (Kapuas Election Commission), and related parties couples H. Muhammad Mawardi-Herson Barthel Aden (Mawardi-Herson). Solicitation Number 94/PHPU.DX/2012 filed by partner number 1 Ben Brahim S. Bahat and H. Muhajirin (Ben-Jirin), while the number 95/PHPU.DX/2012 filed by the couple number 2 H. Surya Dharma and Taufiqurrahman (Surya-Taufiq).

In addition, continued M. Kharisma P. Harahap, Ben-Jirin and Surya-Taufiq just described the events in his petition alleged infractions in the General Election. But according to the Commission Kapuas, there is a clear and detailed description concerning any such violations, whether administrative violations, or criminal offense, and no description of offenses that qualify as violations are structural, systematic and massive.

The couple cannot clearly describe the correlation between the alleged infractions in Kapuas General Election with Ben-Jirin votes. "So it did not look how significant alleged infractions in the election argued by Petitioner affect the number of votes for the Petitioner," Kharisma proposed.

Meanwhile, the pair number 3 H. Muhammad Mawardi-Herson Barthel Aden (Mawardi-Herson) as a Related Party, through its proxy solicitation states refused Ben-Jirin and Surya-Taufiq posita. According to Mawardi-Herson, Kapuas Election process is secured and peaceful. "In fact, Respondent had engaged Election Commission Kapuas of current data collection registration of candidates for election voters to elect a candidate determination has been made in accordance with the legislation in force," said attorney of Mawardi-Herson, Wahyudin.

Herson-Mawardi also vehemently denied all accusations addressed to the couple. For example, allegations of a covert campaign by Aliyah Mawardi, wife of incumbent petahana H. Muhammad Mawardi. Then rebuttal to the allegations about the campaign in the quiet, abuse the opportunity, money politics.

"Money politics was in the form of distribution negligee made by the candidate’s campaign team number 3, false and untrue. Because the distribution of related activities negligee mothers recitals and in no way related to Election Kapuas or related to the campaign team candidate number three," said Mawardi-Herson through its legal attorney. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh)