---

Applicant’s Attorney presents at verdict announcement session on Act of Presidential Elections, on Tuesday (20/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court declares petition on Act Number 42 Year 2008 of Presidential Elections (Undang-Undang Pemilihan Presiden and Wakil Presiden –UU Pilpres) inadmissible. Chief Justice Arief Hidayat accompanied by seven other Constitutional Justices read the verdict at verdict announcement session on Act a quo, on Tuesday (20/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. As known, Antonius Ratumakin et al. file the petition which registered in Case Number 69/PUU-XII/2014.

“Declares Applicants’ petition inadmissible,” said Hidayat when read Verdict Number 69/PUU-XII/2014 at the session.

According to the Court, the Applicants and attorneys don’t attach written evidence, in form of identity card, voter card, tax obligation card (NPWP), or other evidence that support Applicants qualification as citizens who registered as presidential election voters. Thus, the Court argues that the Applicants have no legal standing in filing petition, so the petition points are not considered.

“According to the Court, the Applicants do not include sufficient evidence that support their arguments or explanations regarding Applicants’ legal standing. Thus, the Applicants have no legal standing in filing petition a quo,” said Constitutional Justice Aswanto when read Court’s Consideration.

Previously, the Applicants review Article 141 and Article 156 Act a quo which specifically regulate vote recapitulation system that consist of four stages; district stage, regency stage, provincial stage, and national stage. According to the Applicants, such gradual system is contrary to free and fair principles and resulted in systematic fraud. “The system causes problems that harm the Applicants and other contestants due to vote stealing and vote inflation that occurred during each stage recapitulation,” said Applicants’ Attorney Arvid at the session on Tuesday (2/9). 

The Applicants assess document copying in each stage recapitulation possibly cause manipulation in various forms; unintentional copying errors and intentional errors. Moreover, they assess such gradual system needs large logistics and officials. “Gradual recapitulation process takes long time and cause public insecurity. It particularly causes negative impacts for business environment,” added them.

Therefore, the Applicants request the Court to declare gradual recapitulation system as stipulated in Article 141 until Article 156 Act of Presidential Elections contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no legal binding with any legal consequences. (Lulu Hanifah/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---