The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject six candidates who sued Bandung City Election result won by Ridwan Kamil-Oded M. Danial (RIDO).

At verdict trial which was held on Wednesday (24/7), the Court considered that the applicant cannot prove their argument about partisanship of General Election Commission (KPU) Bandung to candidate number 4, Ridwan Kamil-Oded M. Danial. Petitioners accused Commission pro RIDO by changing the mascot originally illustrated a hand with five fingers of a fist with four fingers to support Candidate Number 4 is. Court’s view it is true there have been changes mascot Bandung election, but such changes are made prior to the determination of candidate numbers.

According to the Court changes mascot "Si Balap" by the Election Commission not to harm Bandung candidates so that the Court is the argument of the petitioners no legal grounds.

Against the argument of the petitioners regarding the printing of ballots conducted by the printing company from outside the City of London, when Commission Regulation stipulates that the procurement of ballots in the areas concerned, the Court considered that the Commission as the Respondent in the case 87/PHPU-XI/2013 has fulfilled its obligations as organizer elections by providing enough ballots in the General Election In 2013 Bandung.

Regarding the validity of the procurement process ballots, Court stated it has not authorized to judge, because it is the authority of the courts of different agencies. In addition to the procurement process used ballots in the General Election has nothing to do directly with the process and results of Election Bandung.

Regarding the political contract made by the partner pairs RIDO with some elements of society in the city of Bandung, the Court considers that the contract is a kind of political campaign promises made in writing by a certain candidate. This Court is not an infringement of money politics during the General Election or not accompanied by a specific provision to influence the voters’ choice. In addition, the Petitioner also cannot prove the influence of the political contract to voters. Thus, the Court considered Petitioner’s argument regarding the political contract no legal grounds.

While the alleged smear campaign conducted by RIDO to the detriment of the applicant, the Court considered that the applicant cannot prove who did the smear campaign. In fact, couple Rido was also experiencing smear campaign by another candidate.

With this decision, the decision of the Commission set Rido as elected Mayor and Vice Mayor 2013-2018 was lawful. (Ilham)