The Constitutional Court (MK) refused to entirely petition filed by five Banyuasin district head candidates on Monday (8/7). The decision No. 72/PHPU.D-XI/2013 read by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar.

"Declare the exception, and the exception Respondent declined exception Related Parties. In the principal case, rejected the petition of the applicant in its entirety," he said.

In the main petition, the Petitioner argues some offense of which the Respondent intentionally squelch any typographical errors in the Model Form C2 - KWK.KPU SIZE LARGE (C2 Plano), Respondent new DPT distributed to polling stations on 1 (one) day before the voting, the Respondent put off meeting plenary the recapitulation, the Respondent violated election procedures by submitting the folding of the ballot to the CO, and others. However, further Arief Hidayat Constitutional Court, based on all the foregoing considerations, the Court does not prove that the Respondent and the Related Parties have made violations a structured, systematic and massive that significantly affect the ranking of votes each Candidate. "Therefore, the entire Petitioners’ argument is not proven according to law," he explained.

In addition, the Court has also received and read and check Banyuasin Written Statement of Supervisory Committee and its Appendix thereto by the applicant and the District Council Monitoring Team reports to Chairman of the Constitutional Court about Banyuasin Election 2013 violations. Not only that, it is strengthened by the testimony of the applicant at the hearing that is M. Adrian Agustiansyah.

"In essence the same as all of the arguments presented by the Petitioners are based on consideration of the Court to the arguments above, it is evident that none of the Petitioners’ argument that proved according to law," said Arief.

Arief explained the Court did not consider whether other evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Respondent, and the Related Parties, unless the evidence has been considered above. "This is because it is another testimony or new information beyond the arguments set forth in the Petitioners ‘petition repair and is not relevant to prove that the Petitioners’ argument," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)