---

Respondent’s Attorney Budi Setiyanto delivered rebuttal against Applicants’ arguments in in Waropen election dispute further session on Tuesday (12/1) in Panel Session Room 1, the Constitutional Court. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

Waropen election commission denied three candidate pair allegations, Respondent’s Attorney Budi Setiyanto delivered rebuttal in Waropen election dispute further session of Case Number 31-56-102/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016 on Tuesday (12/1) in Panel Session Room 1, the Constitutional Court.

Regarding ‘noken’ (proxy) voting in Wapoga village, Setiyanto explained that Wapoga people had willing to use ‘noken’ voting, based on customary deliberation (musyawarah adat) prior to the voting day. In the deliberation, Wapoga people agreed to vote candidate pair number 1 Yeremias Bisai-Hendrik Wonatorey by making a statement.

“During the voting day, candidate pair witness represented the voting by using exactly same voting model with noken system. Therefore, proxy voting is allowed,” said him in front of Justice Panel 1 led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

Respondent Denies Violations in Two Districts

The Respondent also denied violations in Kirihi and Walai districts. Previously, the Applicants argued that Waropen election commission head Maurids Yeremias Mofu and Waropen regional legislative (DPRD) chairman Apinus Wonda made an agreement in a meeting to transfer 1000 votes to candidate pair number 1 in both districts’ vote result. The Respondent clarified that the election head had met the regional legislative chairman in order to evaluate election process in both districts.

“The election commission head was indeed monitored election process in Wakoga and Nabire during the voting day, in order to conduct further coordination on recapitulation. In those areas, the terrain was tough. Therefore, he wanted to ensure that coordination process didn’t exceed the national election stage. No planning at all on the meeting between the election commission head with the chairman,” explained Budi Setiyanto.

Regarding the omission of election monitoring committee’s recommendation, the Respondent argued that the recommendation had exceeded the time limit as mandated in Article 60 Election Commission Regulation Number 10 Year 2000.

No Vote Transaction in Nabire

Justice Panel 1 also examined Nabire election commission’s testimony in three cases simultaneously (Case No. 21-22-25/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016). Representing by Respondent’s Attorney Mahfud, the election commission explained that Applicants’ lawsuits were obscure. Regarding Applicants’ claim on ‘vote transaction’, the Respondent assessed the Applicants cannot described on time and place the ‘vote transaction’ occurred.

“Even if the ‘vote transaction’ was true, it didn’t necessarily become Respondent’s responsibility. Moreover, the Applicants cannot explained the relation between the alleged ‘vote transaction’ with Applicants’ vote result. The Applicants also cannot explained on who election organizer that involved in the transaction and whose candidate’s vote that being transacted,” said Mahfud.

Therefore, the Respondent explained Applicant’s arguments weren’t proved convincingly. “Therefore, Applicants’ lawsuit shall be declared inadmissible,” said Mahfud. (Lulu Anjarsari/lul)

---