Constitutional Court refused to entirely petition filed by BasminMattayang–SyukurBijakin Luwu Election Dispute on Thursday (31/10). Case with number 146/PHPU.D-XI/2013 was read by the Deputy Chief Justice HamdanZoelva accompanied by six other judges in Plenary Room.

In the Court’s opinion read by Judge Maria Farida Indrati, Petitioner argues that the Respondent had erred and violated the law by passing candidates who do not meet the requirement for nominating candidates and the Court found the facts in a court of law that PDK was proposed nomination BasriSuli - Thomas Toba in Luwu Election Year 2013. Court argued that the legal certainty of support PDK Luwu against BasriSuli - Thomas Toba cannot be sacrificed simply because in the process of registration of the candidate chairman resigned, while substantially no double support or withdrawal of support from the PDK. “Based on these considerations, the Court is Petitioner’s argument regarding the invalidity of PDK Luwu support to couple BasriSuli - Thomas Toba had no legal grounds," he said.

 Additionally, Petitioner argues that the nomination of Thomas Toba suspected meant to break down , reduce , and deflate the support and the votes applicant in six districts in the region WalenrangLamasi. Maria explains, the Court considered the argument that the assumption is thus still to be proved legally by the Applicant. Petitioner witnesses essentially testified that the only candidate Vice Regent of the applicant is a close relative (cousin) of Candidate Number 3, but does not explain the fact of the breakdown,reduction, or deflation the vote of Applicant. “Because Petitioner did not prove further their argument, Petitioners’ argument that the Court should be declared legally proven," he explained.

Then , the Petitioner that the Respondent commit fraud to help win Candidate Number 2 , AriefHidayat explained, the Court is Petitioner’s argument that voters cast their KPPS and over and over to win Candidate Number 2 , as well as arguments about the actions the Village Head Sinaji influence voters in the polling station to elect Candidate Number 2 , should be declared legally proven Petitioner argues Candidate Number 2 commit offenses against the Petitioner’s argument , the Court is Petitioner’s arguments are clearly outlined and detailed . As of the evidence presented by the applicant, in the form of photographs, letters reports and video footage, the Court cannot find strong evidence that the Petitioner is actually happening on the orders of Candidate Number 2 or at least events that benefit the applicant argued Candidate Number 2. “Thus, the Court is Petitioner’s argument should be declared legally proven. Considering that the Petitioner’s argument apart and rest, because it is not described and no further evidenced by the applicant, the Court will not consider it,"said Arief. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)