The Constitutional Court (MK) stated in its decision not to accept an application case of dispute of election result of Bekasi - Case No. 4 and 5/PHPU.D-XI/2013. The decision read by Constitutional Assembly on Tuesday (29/1) afternoon.

"Conclusion, based on an assessment of the law and the facts as described above, the Court concludes Related Parties reasoned exception by law; petition filed past the grace period specified regulations; principal issue was not considered," said Chairman of the Plenary Mahfud MD, accompanied by the other constitutional judges at the request of the second case.

Against the fourth petition, the Court considered the exceptions filed by the Respondent and the Related Parties. Based on Respondent’s demurrer, the petition does not meet the rules of an application, fuzzy and unclear. Based exception Related Party, Petitioner has no legal standing, applicant through time, one object because Petitioner filed object Minutes Count Summary of Results Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Bekasi by Bekasi Election Commission.

Furthermore, after the Court to examine carefully the evidence letters / papers submitted by the parties and the facts in the trial, it was discovered the law: there are two documents issued by the Respondent, the Official Vote Count Results Summary of General Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, dated December 26, 2012; KPU Decree No. Bekasi. 61/Kpts/KPU-Kota-011.329172/2012 on the Determination and Summary of Results Count Candidate Elected Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Bekasi Period 2013-2018 dated December 28, 2012.

Considering that the Petitioner filed a petition to the Constitutional Court on Friday, January 4, 2013 in accordance with the Deed of Acceptance Files Petition No. 21/PAN.MK/2013, dated January 4, 2013. Based on the above considerations, the petition was filed beyond the deadline set by the legislation in force.

Based on the description above legal considerations, according to the Court, the exception of the Related Party that the petition was unwarranted expiration according to law. Considering that the demurrer Related Parties on the petition by the time the exception legally groundless other Related Parties, the Respondent’s exception, the authority of the Court to hear the petition, the Petitioner’s legal standing to file the petition a quo as well as the principal issue is not considered.

Then the fifth petition, according to the Respondent, the petition does not meet the rules of a petition, and the petition incoherent and Related Party filed an exception that the petition and the petition expiration of one object, the Court considered in advance about these exceptions.

Exception to the Related Parties of the fifth petition through time, as well as exceptions to the petition No. 4/PHPU.D-XI/2013, while the petition received at the Clerk of the Court on January 4, 2013 under the Deed of Receipt Files Petition No. 23/PAN.MK/2013. So the consideration of the Court in Decision No. 4/PHPU.D-XI/2013 dated January 29, 2013 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case.

Considering that the demurrer Related Party on the expiration of the petition argued by law, then the other PihakTerkait exceptions, Respondent’s exception, the authority of the Court to hear the petition, the Petitioner’s legal standing to file the petition a quo as well as the principal issue is not considered. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh)