Petitioner Expert in Dispute of Election Result of Gorontalo: Verdict in Appeal Not Yet Final and Binding
Image


Evidentiary hearing in dispute of election result of of Gorontalo, 2013 - Case No. 32, 33 and 34/PHPU.D-XI/2013 - held back the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (22/4) afternoon. Agenda included a briefing session from Maruarar Siahaan as an expert from Petitioner in Case 33, Adhan Dambea and Inrawanto.

"Experts presented here as an expert in the field of administrative law. Our question, if the administrative dispute, the plaintiff sued the defendant in the proceedings there are those who feel interested and determined as a defendant pleading intervention. Then there is the trial decision. Respondent I accepted the verdict, while the second defendant refused intervention and appealed. Is the State Administrative Court decision that already has a legally enforceable or not?" said Yusril Ihza Mahendra, Petitioner’s attorney from Adhan Dambea and Inrawanto.

 "I think the simple answer is, of course a copy of the decision itself will explain about it. That the verdict issued if any, would be made a qualification whether it is powered or not. But the doctrine of jurisprudence is clear that he is one of the parties. If appealed, I guess so brightly lit that the decision has not yet legally binding," said Maruarar.

Furthermore Yusril asked Maruarar back, "Well, it’s been used as written evidence in this trial. Then in terms of the decision does not have any legally binding because the defendant appealed intervention. Is it permissible under the law of the state administration, the defendant immediately implemented the decision of the verdict indeed ordered the defendant to revoke his decision. On the grounds that the decision was revoked by the defendant because the defendant received despite intervention appeal?"

"The case is very brightly lit settings as well, but it could always happen that the Commission is obviously true as a defendant in that case, the Administrative Law tied to a provision stating that if a decision has not been final and binding, it cannot be implemented, "Maruarar said to the panel of judges, led by Judge Hamdan Zoelva.

Maruarar said the Commission decision was correct, but when the decision was made, the decision of the administrative court to cancel without the verdict directly implemented by canceling all the decisions. "It was a very astonishing. Why this is so? For this to happen, it was clear qualifications in constitutional rights," said Maruarar.

Furthermore, Maruarar explained matters related to legalization diploma. Maruarar said, legalization is actually just wanted a letter stating that in accordance with the original or not. Therefore, if you see the administrative regulation that happens, Maruarar suggested that back to the decision of the Court.        

As it was known, Petitioner Case No. 32 is Feriyanto Mayulu - Abdurrahman Bahmid, while Petitioner Case No. 33 is the Adhan Dambea - Inrawanto, while Petitioner Case No. 34 is A.W. Talib - Ridwan Monoarfa. As the Respondent is Gorontalo City Election Commission, whereas the Related Parties is Marten Taha and Budi Doku.

Feriyanto Mayulu and Abdurrahman Bahmid Respondent alleges fraud that allow candidates who are not candidates for the General Election, Adhan Dambea and Irwanto Hasan as candidate number 3 was allowed to take place shortly before the General Election campaign and after the last General Election.

Furthermore, Petitioner Adhan Dambea-Inrawanto said that based on the decision of the Administrative Court Case No. 05/G/2013/P.TUN.Mdo and No. 06/G/2013/P.TUN.Mdo cancel KPU Decree of the Gorontalo city. Therefore, asked the judges to order Gorontalo City Election Commission to hold repeat polls in Gorontalo City Election 2013.

Panhar Markawi as Petitioner’s attorney of A.W. Talib and Ridwan Monoarfa also asked the judges to order Gorontalo City Election Commission to hold the vote, followed by re-qualified candidates. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh)


Monday, April 22, 2013 | 19:01 WIB 77