Three matters of Jayapura city, Papua, namely 69/PHPU.D-IX/2011, 70/PHPU.D-IX/2011, and 71/PHPU.D-IX/2011 read the decision by the Court on Thursday (30/6). Three cases are successively rejected, not accepted, and rejected the petition by the Court. So that none of the petition filed by the Court granted.
Each case filed by Hendrik Woromi-Pene IFI Kogoya (69), Julius Mambay-Petrus Paulus (70), and Abishai Rollo-Reyneilda M. Kaisepo. All of them sued the City Commission of Jayapura.
For case 69, the Court argues Petitioner has no authentic evidence that can convince the Court related to Petitioners' argument that states the Respondent, the Chairman and Members of the Commission Jayapura City, has a mutation of Jayapura City KPU Secretariat staff.
In addition, the applicant 69 does not have any authentic evidence to prove and convince the Court that Respondent, in this case the Chairman of KPU Jayapura City, has taken over the duties and authority of the Secretary of the Commission Jayapura.In the same argument, the Court also believes the Petitioner can not prove that there are alignments by the Respondent to Related Parties, which in turn influence the vote of each candidate.
In the final verdict in the case No. 69/PHPU.D-IX/2011, Chairman of the Constitutional Court which also acts as Chairman of the Plenary Court judges read the conclusion."The verdict rejected the petition entirely, " Mahfud said.
While the case 70/PHPU.D-IX/2011, the Court states can not accept the petition. Because the Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing) to apply. Therefore, the Court does not consider the petition later.
Lastly, the application case. 71/PHPU.D-IX/2011 rejected by the Court. Abishai Rollo-Reyneilda M. Kaisepo petition was rejected because the subject is inappropriate and unwarranted by law. "Stating to reject the Petitioners' petition in its entirety. Hence the decision was in the Consultative Meeting of nine Constitutional Court Justices, " Mahfud said as he closed the hearing. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/Yazid.tr)
Each case filed by Hendrik Woromi-Pene IFI Kogoya (69), Julius Mambay-Petrus Paulus (70), and Abishai Rollo-Reyneilda M. Kaisepo. All of them sued the City Commission of Jayapura.
For case 69, the Court argues Petitioner has no authentic evidence that can convince the Court related to Petitioners' argument that states the Respondent, the Chairman and Members of the Commission Jayapura City, has a mutation of Jayapura City KPU Secretariat staff.
In addition, the applicant 69 does not have any authentic evidence to prove and convince the Court that Respondent, in this case the Chairman of KPU Jayapura City, has taken over the duties and authority of the Secretary of the Commission Jayapura.In the same argument, the Court also believes the Petitioner can not prove that there are alignments by the Respondent to Related Parties, which in turn influence the vote of each candidate.
In the final verdict in the case No. 69/PHPU.D-IX/2011, Chairman of the Constitutional Court which also acts as Chairman of the Plenary Court judges read the conclusion."The verdict rejected the petition entirely, " Mahfud said.
While the case 70/PHPU.D-IX/2011, the Court states can not accept the petition. Because the Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing) to apply. Therefore, the Court does not consider the petition later.
Lastly, the application case. 71/PHPU.D-IX/2011 rejected by the Court. Abishai Rollo-Reyneilda M. Kaisepo petition was rejected because the subject is inappropriate and unwarranted by law. "Stating to reject the Petitioners' petition in its entirety. Hence the decision was in the Consultative Meeting of nine Constitutional Court Justices, " Mahfud said as he closed the hearing. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/Yazid.tr)
