The Constitutional Court (MK) decided four cases relating to the election of the Governor of Papua on Monday (11/3) at the Plenary Court. The case with the number 14, 15, 16, and 17 PHPU.D-XI/2013 read out by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD accompanied by seven-other constitutional judges.

The Court rejected the entire petition of case number 14/PHPU.D-XI/2013 filed by Habel M. Suwae-Yop Kogoya because the arguments of the petition have not been proven according to law. In the opinion of the Court was read by Judge Maria Farida Indrati, the Court considered evidence of letters / words and witnesses presented by the petition is not sufficient to prove that the Respondent and the Related Parties have been a conspiracy to win the Related Parties by exploiting weaknesses in the noken electoral system by issuing KPU Decree No. 01/Kpts/KPU Prov.030/2013 on Technical Guidelines for Voting Procedures Using Noken as Substitute for Voting Box, which is used as a tool for the Respondent to win the Related Parties.

"The Court did not find any set of facts that prove that there is an attempt of the Respondent to win the Related Party actually done in a structured, systematic and massive by issuing Decree No. 01/Kpts/KPU Prov.030/2013 Commission on Technical Guidelines Voting Procedures Using Substitute Noken for Voting and Election organizers involving ranks," he said.

While the Petitioner regarding DPT, Maria explained the error in the preparation of DPT is due to defective recording system in the administration of population and defective use of computer technology in nearly all of Indonesia since the 2009 election, so it is not the fault of the organizers Election as user demographic data. According to the Court, any candidate should know and understand about it, so that if one candidate aggrieved by the determination of DPT may appeal at that time the future stages of updating data and lists of voters and not raise objections after the implementation of the General Election. "Based on these considerations, the Court a quo Petitioner has not been proven according to law," he explained.

Meanwhile, Maria continued, Petitioners’ argument about the existence of other violations, according to the Court, not substantiated with convincing evidence that another violation occurs in a structured, systematic and massive significantly affect the vote applicant to exceed the number of votes the Related Parties. "Therefore, according to the Court a quo Petitioners’ argument is unproven and unreasonable law," he said.

Wrong in Object of Petition 

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court decided not to accept the petition filed by Menase Robert Kambu-Blasius Adolf Pakage with 15/PHPU.D-XI/2013 number, request of Noakh Nawipa-Johannes Wop in case Number 16/PHPU.D-XI/2013 and Barnabas Suebu-John Tabo in case Number 17/PHPU.D-XI/2013. "In the Exception, exception granted Respondent. One object petition, in Principal Application cannot be accepted," said Mahfud.

In the opinion of the Court that the Constitution was read by Justice Anwar Usman, the Court considered the Respondent’s exception that states Petitioner wrong in deciding the request object. The applicant in the initial petition or fixes petition argues that the object of the dispute is the Minutes of the General Election Commission of Papua 05A/BA/B15/II/2013 Number of Votes Summary of Results Acquisition of Each Candidate Governor and Deputy Governor of Papua Province, on February 13 , 2013. In fact, Anwar continued, should be on the Determination and Announcement of Election Results Governor and Deputy Governor of Papua Province Year 2013 and the Election Commission Decision on the Determination Prov.030/2013 07/Kpts/KPU Number Candidate Elected Governor and Deputy Governor of Papua Province, on 13 February 2013 should be on the Determination and Announcement of Election Results Governor and Deputy Governor of Papua Province Year 2013.

"Therefore, the Respondent’s exception of one object petition argued by law, the legal status (legal standing) of the applicant, filing deadline, and the principal issue was not considered," said Anwar. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)