Constitutional Court refused to entirely petition filed by Muda Mahendrawan - Suharjo on Thursday (31/10). Decision to No. 145/PHPU.D-XI/2013 read by Deputy Chief Justice HamdanZoelvaand is accompanied by six judges of the constitution in Plenary Room.

In the main petition was read by Judge Ahmad FadlilSumadi, the Court considered that it is true there has been a division of the money being made by some members KPPS at some polling stations, and there are some members who are witnesses KPPS Related Parties during the process of recapitulation, but written evidence and witness testimony of the applicant is not sufficient to ensure that the distribution of the money being made by members KPPS comes from and by order and direction of the Related Party and carried out in a structured, systematic and massive, involving all levels of the Respondent.

 “According to the Court, if any case of money politics by members KPPS, it is only sporadic and does not affect the ranking of the vote Applicant or Related Party significantly. Therefore, the argument was not proven according to law," said Fadlil.

In addition, continued Fadlil, Petitioner argues that the West Kalimantan Governor Cornelis as Related Party campaigners have attempted to intentionally make a statement in order to influence voters on behalf of the citizens of his post as governor in order for voters elect Candidate Number , the Court considered that the Petitioner did not prove. "In addition, according to the Court, Cornelis visit is according to its capacity as a Related Party campaigner who has been approved leave of absence during the campaign. Petitioners’ argument the Court a quo is not proven and no legal ground," said Fadlil.

While the applicant argued violations, Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim explains, if any, is not structured, systematic, and massive, which significantly affect the ranking of the results of the vote each candidate , but only sporadic. In addition, sporadic violations is not only done by the Related Party but based on the facts in the trial, also conducted by the applicant. Therefore, the overall facts cannot undo the results of the General Election in whole or in part because it does not significantly affect the outcome of the vote each candidate.

"Nevertheless, these violations can still be followed through the legal process in accordance with the category of the offense. Based on all the above legal considerations and in relation to one another, the Court held that the petition was not unreasonable under the law," said Alim. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)