North Bolaang Mongondow vice regent candidate Murianto Babay (right) as Petitioner after the ruling pronouncement hearing of the 2018 North Bolaang Mongondow Regent-Vice Regent Election results on Monday (17/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the 2018 North Bolaang Mongondow Regent-Vice Regent Election petition on Monday (17/9/2018) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

"The verdict adjudicated, declares the entire petition of the Petitioners," said plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman n the ruling pronouncement hearing of Case No. 6/PHP.BUP-XVI/2018.

Regarding the case petitioned by the North Bolaang Mongondow regent-vice regent Candidate Pair Number 3 Hamdan Datunsolang-Murianto Babay, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo read out the legal consideration that the Petitioners argued there had been violations before the voting day, which is the alleged recruitment by the Respondent of members of the polling committee (PPS) and the sub-district election committee (PPK) mainly from civil apparatus (ASN) who have emotional and structural connections to the Relevant Party (incumbents). After examining the evidence, the Court did not find any sign of objection from the Petitioners. The Petitioners’ witness had disclosed that it was made an issue after voting results declaration at the regency level. The Court was also not certain that if the a quo Petitioners’ argument was accurate, the 693 ASN would vote for the Relevant Party.

"Besides, if there was indeed an objection to the number of ASNs appointed as election organizers and to alleged violation, it should have been reported to the North Bolaang Mongondow Regency supervisory committee because based on Article 30 of Law No. 10 of 2016, it is the authority of the supervisory committee. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the a quo Petitioners’ argument is legally groundless," Justice Suhartoyo said.

Evidence of Forms 

The Petitioners also alleged abnormality on the vote recapitulation at the KPPS and PPK because of 2,319 additional voters on the election day who used e-ID (DPTb) was an indication of of planned violation by the Respondent and the Relevant Party through the issuance of e-IDs prior to the voting. After conducting a thorough examination, the Court was of the opinion that the voters who use the DPTb were registered in the C7-KWK or A.Tb-KWK Model Forms. However, in the a quo case no parties submitted evidence of the forms in question. According to the Court, the Petitioners argued that the additional voters were only based on counts obtained from sources that could not be confirmed. "Because the evidence submitted cannot convince the Court and there is no other evidence that can be used as a comparison, the Court cannot believe the truth of the Petitioners’ argument," said Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti