 | |
|
Jakarta, MKOnline - Tjahjadi and Aryanto Nugroho Nugroho, respectively as Commissioner and President Director of PT. Mutual Tlaga Jaya, Semarang, Central Java, should be tolerant, after the Constitutional Court (MK) can not accept applications both in hearing the pronunciation of the verdict on Monday (7/25/2011).
“To declare the petition is unacceptable,” said Chairman of the Plenary Session Judge Court, Moh. Mahfud MD when reading the ruling of the Judicial Review case 4/PUU-IX/2011 Book of Civil Law Act (Civil Code) and Act 4 / 2004 on Judicial Power.
Legal issues raised by Petitioner is about testing the material to the substance of Article 616, Article 617, Article 618, Article 619, Article 620 and Article 1918 Civil Code, Article 19 of Government Regulation (PP) 10/1961 on Land Registration; Article 1 Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian 14/1961 on Demand and Permit Transfer of Land Rights, Article 23 and Article 37 paragraph (1) PP 24/1997, Article 1, Section 23, Article 28 and Article 33 of Law 4 / 2004 on Judicial Power, against the 1945 Constitution.
Court in its opinion read by Judge Maria Farida Indrati, stating, Petitioner argues itself as a legal entity of public and private legal entities as well.” But the Court’s opinion that the applicant only qualifies as a private legal entity, as referred to in Article 51 paragraph (1) letter c of the Constitutional Court,” said Maria.
Application Fleeing
According to the Court, although the applicant qualifies as a private legal entity in the testing of the 1945 Act, but Petitioner did not explain the losses they experienced. Though the Court in a preliminary trial date of January 17, 2011 has checked the application and gives advice to Petitioner to improve and complete the application no later than 14 days. However, Petitioner did not fix the application, while improvements have exceeded the time limit.
Therefore, the Court examined the petition which had been registered without changes. The Court considered the substance of the petition blurred. ”Against the substance of the petition, the Court considered the petition obscure material (obscuur libel),” Maria continued.
Court declared no longer need to examine and consider the principal substance of the petition because the petition vague and qualified person as defined by Article 51 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) the Constitutional Court Law. Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing). (Nur Rosihin Ana /mh)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar