Syahdan Anggoi-Honorius Bruno’s application in Case No. 77/PHPU.D-IX/2011 on Dispute on the Results of the General Election (PHPU) Landak Regency rejected entirely by the Constitutional Court (MK) in Reading Session Decision attended by 9 Judge Kontitusi Friday (15/7).
According to the Court, the Petitioner cannot prove the arguments that the Related Parties to money politics in the form of sharing food, money, and others who are caught in the Village Darit, District Menyuke. Evidence in the form of photocopies Applicant Receipt Number 32/PANWAS-KEC.VI/2011 Report, dated June 7, 2011, not enough to convince the Court that the Related Parties have committed some offense argued by the Petitioner. While on the other Related Party has proved that the report had been followed up and clarified by Election Supervisory Committee. "Thus, Petitioners a quo has not been proven according to law," Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi said.
Petitioners' argument says that the Related Party to mobilize student College of Education of Pontianak (STKIP) in Communication Student Forum of Pontianak from District to District for election and chose the Related Parties, and is associated administration cost 50,000 , - the students were provided by related parties. Concerning the argument, the Court considers that the Petitioners' argument is groundless law.
Petitioners' argument says that the Related Party to mobilize student College of Education of Pontianak (STKIP) in Communication Student Forum of Pontianak from District to District for election and chose the Related Parties, and is associated administration cost 50,000 , - the students were provided by related parties. Concerning the argument, the Court considers that the Petitioners' argument is groundless law.
While associated with Petitioner's argument that says that the Respondent had made a mistake in the recapitulation of vote counting Regency Hedgehogs Plenary Meeting on June 14, 2011, according to the Court because the petition did not indicate where the error made by the recapitulation of the Respondent, and Petitioner did not submit any evidence prove the theorem a quo, then the Petitioners a quo should be declared unfounded.
Based on the things that have been described, the Court believes that the argument of the Petitioner has not been proven according to law. "Passing, Declare: The Exception: Exception Rejecting the Respondent and Related Parties. In the Main Case the Court rejected the petition in its entirety, " Mahfud MD said. (Shohibul Umam/mh/Yazid.tr)
Based on the things that have been described, the Court believes that the argument of the Petitioner has not been proven according to law. "Passing, Declare: The Exception: Exception Rejecting the Respondent and Related Parties. In the Main Case the Court rejected the petition in its entirety, " Mahfud MD said. (Shohibul Umam/mh/Yazid.tr)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar