---

The Constitutional Court (MK) refused to entirely petition filed by candidate Andi Harahap-Sutiman. Verdict number 53/PHPU.D-XI/2013 read by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar, assisted by eight other constitutional judges on Thursday (30/5) at the Plenary Court.

 

In the opinion of the Court, Petitioner argued mentioned offense is not proved by evidence sufficient to convince that the violation occurred in a systematic, structured, and massive that significantly affects the vote applicant to exceed the Related Parties of the vote. "Therefore, the Court is Petitioner`s argument is not proven and no legal grounds," said Anwar Usman.

 

Anwar explain Petitioners argue in essence, of which the Respondent alignments associated with the Related Party nomination; their engineering and scenario made by the Respondent related Voters List (DPT); Respondent provide technical guidance notwithstanding; happen intimidation against the people and the bureaucracy . Additionally, the Respondent has precluded and ignores the objection raised by the applicant and witnesses a violation that is structured, systematic, and massive and almost all the district of North Penajam Paser. "Based on all the above legal considerations, the Court is Petitioner`s arguments are not proven according to law," he explained.

 

Meanwhile, in the same trial, the Court declared the application submitted by Sandra Puspa Dewi-Harimuddin Rasyid cancelled. Akil explains the main legal issues is an objection to North Penajam Paser Election Commission Decree No. 65/Kpts/KPU-PPU-6409.12/2013 on the Determination Result Summary of General Election Vote Count Regent and Vice Regent North Penajam Paser Year 2013, dated May 2, 2013 , which is set by the Respondent.

 

To the petition, the Court has summoned the Petitioner was legally and worthy to attend the hearing on May 21, 2013 by virtue of the Registrar of the Constitutional Court No. 591.24/PAN.MK/5/2013, dated May 15, 2013 regarding the Call Session, but in fact the Petitioner was not present. The Court at the hearing on May 22, 2013 re-calls Petitioner to present at the trial, but the applicant still not present.

 

 

"Against the Applicant`s absence, which although it has been legally summoned and should however not present and did not instruct their proxies to attend without a valid reason, the Court argued, the Petitioner was not seriously considered the petition and the applicant does not exercise its right. Therefore, for the sake of justice is swift, simple, and inexpensive, and for the sake of legal certainty, the petition should be declared void," said Akil. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)

---