The Constitutional Court again held further session of six election disputes on Wednesday (13/1), in Panel Session Room 3, the Constitutional Court Building. Election commissions and related parties delivered answers in respective disputes. The disputes were Konawe Islands (No. 30/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016), South Buru (No. 43/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016), Southwest Maluku (No. 93/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016 and No. 129/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016), Wakatobi (No. 117/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016), and Muna (No. 120/PHP.BUP-XIV/2016).

As Muna election commission’s attorney, Refly Harun delivered exception against candidate pair Rusman-Ditu’s arguments. Harun said the election commission performed their task well and in accordance with regulation.

Harun also denied Applicant’s arguments concerning vote recapitulation error, double voter, and attemps for hamper voting rights. Applicant’s data cannot prove clearly on recapitulation error, according to the Respondent.

“The Applicant used jumping logic when they came to conclusion that vote margin 69 votes were automatically belonged to the Applicant. If such margin exists, it doesn’t necessarily belong to one candidate pair. All three candidate pairs have same opportunity to get the votes,” said Harun. He also requested the Court to reject Applicant’s lawsuit.

Related Party’s Attorney Bayu Prasetyo also argued similar argument. Prasetyo argued Applicant’s claims didn’t cover in Court’s jurisdiction.

“In the exception (eksepsi), we recognize that Applicant’s lawsuit is concern on violation allegations during election, not the 2015 Muna election result,” said Prasetyo.  

Moreover, Prasetyo added, Applicant’s lawsuit is arranged by ignoring legal facts and based merely on assumption. Therefore, Related Party requested the Court to declare Applicant’s lawsuit inadmissible.

Not Cover in Court’s Jurisdiction

Unlike the Related Party, Konawe Islands election commission argued the Applicant only concerned on violations and disputes which occurred in election process. Whereas, the Court had jurisdiction over election result, Respondent’s Attorney Baron Harahab added.

“We like to affirm, Your Honor, that there was no objection from the Applicant in entire election process, from candidacy to pre-recapitulation,” said Harahab.

In the session, Justice Panel also verified Respondent’s and Related Party’s written evidences. Justice Panel 3 scheduled to hear 18 election disputes on tomorrow’s (Thursday) session. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/lul)