The Constitutional Court (MK) finally reject all requests Election Results Dispute case (PHPU) Donggala - Case No. 188/PHPU.D-XI/2013. It was submitted by the constitutional judges hearing the pronunciation of the verdict, Thursday (19/12) afternoon. “Principal petitions no legal grounds. Ruling states reject the petition in its entirety," said Hamdan, who was accompanied Zoelva other constitutional judges.

In the opinion of the Court, inter alia mentioned Petitioner’s argument (No 8 Anita Bugiswaty Noerdin and Abdul Chair A Mahmud) that the Respondent (Donggala Election Commission) has deliberately speed up the process of recapitulation of votes Donggala 2013 Election second round for the sake of winning Related parties (No. 4 Kasman Lassa and Vera Elena Laruni).

Against the argument, the Respondent denied and argued essentially the second amendment of the stages , the program , and Donggala Election schedule for 2013 is based on the consideration to rationalize the determination of the lag time between submission of Elected Candidate Pair Regional Head and Deputy Head of Donggala 2013 second round to Donggala parliament , after the decision of the Constitutional Court with a term of Regent and Vice Regent Donggala 2008-2013 period which will expire December 24, 2013.

After the Court to examine and examine carefully the arguments of the Applicant, the Respondent’s argument rebuttal, as well as the evidence submitted by the Applicant and the Respondent, the Court can understand the reason for the schedule change on Election recapitulation Donggala 2013 second round by the Respondent as described above. Of the schedule change, the Court did not find any evidence that the Respondent schedule changes made ​​intentionally to benefit and harm Related parties Applicant. Based on these considerations, the Court a quo Petitioners’ argument is not unreasonable under the law.

Furthermore, Mahkamh provide opinion on Petitioner’s argument that the Respondent did updating stages voter data and the determination of voters list (DPT) has violated the principle of fair, public interest, transparency, rule of law and accountability. To Petitioner’s argument, the Respondent denied that the applicant cannot clearly distinguish the number of people for the purposes of organizing legislative elections in 2014 with a population of interest Donggala Election 2013. Data Donggala population of as many as 294 825 Regent Donggala submitted on December 7, 2012 was the data of population for purposes of legislative elections in 2014, while the population data for the purposes of Donggala Election 2013, especially for the preparation of the voters list, the process begins with the submission of the List of Potential Voters Election (DP4) of local government Donggala to the Respondent. In this DP4 only contain data of population Donggala potential vote in the General Election 2013.

After the Court to examine and examine carefully the arguments of the Applicant , the Respondent’s objection , and the evidence submitted by the Applicant and the Respondent , according to the Court , the Respondent in determining the number of voters list ( DPT ) on Election Donggala 2013 in accordance with the procedures and applicable regulations . The Court did not find convincing evidence that the Respondent intends DPT determination to obstruct or facilitate candidates Donggala Election 2013 from individual lines except those eligible under the legislation. Based on these considerations, the Court is Petitioner’s argument is not unreasonable under the law. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh)