The long journey of case of dispute of election result of Paniai regency, Papua province is over. Having previously ordered Paniai Election Commission to re-verify the candidates, both administratively and factual, the Constitutional Court decided to accept the report of the Election Commission of Paniai as the Respondent in this case.

"Petitioner petitions unproven and unwarranted by law. It claimed to reject the petition for all," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD Thursday (28/2) at the Plenary. The case was filed by Candidate Regent and Vice Regent No. 3, Yulius Kayame and Haam Nawipa.

Nevertheless, the existence of the alleged offense occurred in Paniai Election 2012, the Court holds can be reached and resolved through existing legal procedures. "Regardless of the legal reasoning in the Court a quo, the alleged criminal matters elections and other violations, according to the Court, about it can still be done other remedy under the legislation," said Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi.

In addition, the Court also stated that it considered the information Paniai Election Supervisory Committee presented at trial. Because according to the Court, Supervisory Election Committee of Paniai District did not get a recommendation from the Board of Supervisors election as head of the Election Supervisory Committee at the central level.

Have No Legal Standing

Meanwhile, the other four requests, the Court declared unacceptable. The reason, the petitioners have no legal status (legal standing) to apply.

Four decision that Decision No. 78/PHPU.D-X/2012, Decision No. 80/PHPU.D-X/2012, Decision No.. 81/PHPU.D-X/2012, and Decision No. 82/PHPU.D-X/2012. The whole case was filed by the prospective candidates in the General Election of Paniai District 2012.

"Court is the objection petition is proven and unwarranted by law, while as far as the implementation of the verification process and verification of factual administration to candidates and candidates will be conducted by the Respondent is legally valid. Thus, based on all the description above considerations, and to ensure fair legal certainty, the Court should be issuing a final decision in the case a quo, "explained M. Constitutional Justice Akil Mochtar. (Dodi / mh)