---

The Constitutional Court held a hearing of Murung Raya Regency’s Election, Central Kalimantan, on Monday (29/4) afternoon, at the Plenary Court Room. With the agenda of the session, listen to the answers of Respondent and responses from Elected Candidate Perdie M. Yoseph - Darmaji (Related Party).

Respondent Attorney Robikin Emhas, states, and denies all Petitioners asked the Court to reject the petition in Case No. 38/PHPU.D-XI/2013 filed by Candidate Nuryakin and Sirajul Rahman. According to him, the argument that states the existence of terror and intimidation is not true. "Allegations or allegations of violations it then becomes something questionable and need to be ruled out," he said.

Meanwhile, related to an error in the summation when recapitulation as Petitioner questioned, according to Robikin, it really happened, but he made sure it did not affect the votes of the candidates. Because, error summation occurs only in counting the number of male voters and women were present, so it does not change the vote of each candidate.

"In principle the issues leveled against the Respondent is totally untrue and the events it is not a threat to the freedom of the people to give their voting rights, including the emergence of fear of losing their right to vote in the voting booth," said Robikin.

In addition, Robikin also has responded Petitioner in Case No. 39/PHPU.D-XI/2013 filed by Candidate Rojikinnor and M. Setia Budi. In his petition, Petitioner questions the requirement bearer party support. Robikin asserted, of the seven parties that carry the applicant, four unauthorized bearer party. So couple Rojikinnor and Setia Budi not eligible.

With regard to Palangkaraya administrative court ruling which overturned a decision of Murung Raya Election Commission, according to Robikin, the only question the decision support Indonesian Youth Party (PPI), and does not offend the other party support. In fact, there are three other parties are also problematic. In fact, there are also other woods administrative requirements are not met by the applicant, the statement loyal to Pancasila.

Meanwhile, the Legal Counsel of the Related Party Todung Mulya Lubis, also denied Petitioner’s arguments. According to Todung, Petitioner’s argument is the assumption because it is not based on facts and hard evidence. In essence he argues, the implementation of Murung Raya General Election 2013 takes place safely, smoothly and orderly according to laws and regulations that apply.

"The fact the details and implementation of voting violations mentioned applicant highly inaccurate and contradictory and contrary to the facts and evidence in the field," said he argued.

Defection in Process 

After hearing the Respondent answers and Related Parties responses, the Constitutional Court Panel led by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar, then listen to the testimony of experts and witnesses presented by the applicant. On that occasion, the applicant presented a total of eleven witnesses, and an expert, i.e. Jatmiko Anom Husodo. 

In expert testimony, Jatmiko highlighting Palangkaraya Administrative Court Decision, which in one verdict, ordered the Respondent to include the applicant as a candidate. Consequently, he said, the Commission must revoke Murung Raya Commission Decision who does not pass Petitioner. Because if the Respondent does not make decisions and implement new administrative court decision, the Election that have been implemented can be expressed flaw in the process. "You should have their rights (Applicant) as a candidate to be restored," he said.

The next session will be held on Wednesday (1/5) at 10:30 pm, in the Meeting Room of the Court. The agenda would be listening to experts and witnesses of the Respondent and the Related Parties. (Dodi / mh)

---