Reviewing Act of Cooperative: Petition of the Petitioners Denied

Principal Petitioner Abdullah Sani and Husien Djunaidi after hearing the reading Decision of the case number 32/PUU-IX/2011 on reviewing Act No. 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperatives [Article 20 Paragraph (1) letter a and Article 37], on Thursday (28/7)

The Case No. 32/PUU-IX/2011 on reviewing Act no. 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperatives reviewed by Muhammad Suryani, Sani Abdullah, Husien Djunaidi, and Badriah. It rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK) in the Plenary Session on Thursday (28 / 7).

In the petition, the Petitioners filed the reviewing of two articles in the Act No. 25/1995 on Cooperatives of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a and Article 37. Article 20 paragraphs (1) a letter stating, “Every member has the obligation: a. comply with the Statutes and Bylaws and the decisions that have been agreed in the Meeting of Members.”

Article 37 states, “Approval of the annual report, including the ratification of the annual calculation, an acceptance of accountability by the Executive Board Meeting of Members.” The article according to the Petitioners violated Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D subsections (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Against the Petitioners’ argument regarding judicial review of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 25/1992 which according to the Petitioners violated Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Court believes that Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which regulates the equality of all citizens before the law and government and an obligation to uphold the law and the government without any exception, not contrary to Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because the board is also members of the cooperative that has the same duties with other members. The Court did not find any relevance of Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 25/1992 to Article 28C Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, so it is not relevant for consideration.

As to Petitioners’ argument that Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of Act 25/1992 is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1), 1945, the Court considered that also did not reveal any differences of interpretation that give rise to a fair legal uncertainty with respect to Article 20 paragraph (1) letter a of the Act 25/1992, as both members and administrators are equally obliged to obey the constitution / or decisions that have been agreed.

In the case of the review of Article 37 of Act 25/1992 which according to the Petitioners violated Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it seems to give legal privileges and immunities of officials cooperative, the Court argued that Article 37 of the Act is to regulate the mechanisms of accountability to all members of the cooperative board, which, if liability is accepted by the meeting of board members freed from its responsibility of the relevant financial year.

This, according to the Court, is a logical consequence of the accountability mechanisms that have been agreed and contained in the AD / ART, because meeting the members holds the highest authority in the cooperative. If it turns out there were criminal acts committed by officials / administrators, acceptance of accountability does not lead to the abolishment of criminal liability administrators / officials concerned. Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument that Article 37 of Act 25/1992 is contradictory to Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is groundless under law. Based on these considerations, “the Court rejected the petition in its entirety,” said Mahfud MD. (Shohibul Umam/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5620

Read more »

Court Rejects Request the Deputy Chairman of the Parliament Kupang

Principal Petitioner, Anthon Melkianus Natun as Vice Chairman of the Parliament in Kupang district on reviewing Act No. 27/2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD [Article 354 paragraph (2)]. In its verdict the court rejected the petition in its entirety because the petition is groundless arguments according to law, on Thursday (28 / 7)

Petition filed by the Vice Chairman of Regency Kupang Melkianus Natun Anthon stated rejected for entirely by the Constitutional Court (MK). The reading of the verdict was read by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, assisted by eight judges constitution on Thursday (28 / 7), at the Plenary Court Room.

“Declare the Provisions, rejected the request provisional petition. In the Basic Petition, Rejecting the petition in its entirety, “said Mahfud when reading Decision No. 21/PUU-IX/2011 read it.

In the main petition, Petitioner argues that Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 are multiple interpretations that conflict with the principle of legal certainty and non-retroactive principle (prohibition of retroactive effect) and does not meet the principles of the formation of legislation. Court’s opinion read by Judge Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi states that Article 354 paragraph (2) of Act 27/2009 which stipulates that Parliament leaders from political parties in order of acquisition of seats in the regency / city, according to the Court’s intention is clear and light, can not be interpreted other.

“The Court considered that the provision did not violate the principle of legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law for the leadership of Parliament who has been designated as a leader who later due to the creation of the aspirations of the people are sovereign, should end his tenure as leader because of the order of seats of political parties being reduced. Legal certainty of the rules lies precisely on the proviso that if the sequence number of seats changed political party in connection with the regional division of the sovereign people’s aspirations, then the composition of the leadership positions should also change, “explained Fadlil.

The provisions of Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 is precisely in accordance with fair legal certainty, as well as equal treatment before the law. A quo provision, continued Fadlil mentioned that political parties before the regional division chair the order of acquisition is less than any other political party but then because of the acquisition sequence of area chair be more entitled to occupy leadership positions Parliament. ”Political parties are the order of acquisition Instead chair to be reduced and no longer had ranks the highest number of seats should be removed from office the leadership of Parliament. It is also consistent with the provisions of Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which gives every citizen equal opportunity in government, “he explained.

Meanwhile, the Petitioners’ argument that Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 is contradictory to Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which is a human right that can not be reduced under any circumstances, especially the right not to be prosecuted on the basis of applicable law subsided. According to the Court as expressed by Muhammad Alim, in the case of dismissal of the previous parliament leader because of majority of seats for regional expansion, the meaning of the words “not prosecuted on the basis of a retroactive law” is an absolute force in the field of criminal law because it contrary to the principle of legality. ”As for the relationship with the petition, the dismissal from office, not prosecuted on the basis of a retroactive law, but by changing the order of seats Political Parties petition because of the displacement seat parliament seats Political Parties Political Parties petition so that the applicant no longer occupies the highest order,” said Alim.

Alim added all the members of parliament, representing the voters who elected them. If the voters are sovereign is no longer included in the parent region, but has been included in the expansion area, then the legislators who remained in the area of the parent is not representing the voters who have included the expansion area. ”Thus, each regional division, and there is no transfer of Parliament seats to the area expansion would change the configuration of the sovereign voters to support a particular political party. Based on all the legal considerations described above, the Court believes the petition is groundless arguments according to law, “said Alim.

In such decisions, there are three constitutional judges who have a different opinion (dissenting opinion), namely the Constitutional Court Justice Maria Farida Indrati, Hamdan Zoelva, and Anwar Usman. All three claimed the Court should grant the petition to declare Article 354 paragraph (2) of Act No. 27/2009 was conditionally unconstitutional, which is unconstitutional to the extent not interpreted: “the composition of the leadership of parliament did not change despite a change in the composition of the number of seats each political party may result in the expansion area legislators from districts / cities which occurs after the determination of the leadership of regency / city carrier based on the results of the elections “. Of the various provisions, the legal guarantee of DPRD leadership tenure is five years and there is no mechanism to let him go in the middle of the term of office except under the provisions of Article 42 of Regulation 16/2010. 

Therefore, the reasons used to replace one of the leadership position Regency Kupang which is held by the applicant by reason of the number of seats was reduced HANURA Party after the transfer of some members of the local parliament of Sabu Raijua district legislators may result in the division is not fair to the applicant because it violates provisions of the reasons for the dismissal of parliament leaders in the middle term.

Hamdan expressed none of the legal mechanisms provided for in legislation to dismiss the head of parliament due to changes in the composition of the number of seats due to regional expansion, so the law must provide a guarantee for someone who has been appointed head of Parliament for a term of five years and can not be dismissed in term of office for no reason that it is set clearly. Mechanisms determine the leadership of Parliament is not a constitutional issue, but legal policy and political issues of law forming the Act.

“That is, whether the head of Parliament is determined based on the ratings of the seat of political parties or the rank number of seats in Parliament or election by the parliament just a way and purely political choice and not a constitutional issue. Therefore, in this case legal policy issues must not sacrifice the constitutional rights of citizens to obtain a fair legal certainty is guaranteed by the constitution in this case the right of a person who has been promoted to senior leadership positions during the five-year parliament that has been guaranteed by the laws that already exist previously. Therefore, to prevent violations of the principle of a fair legal certainty guaranteed by the constitution, then the interpretation of Article 354 paragraph (2) of Law 27/2009 is to be limited and affirmed by the Court, “Hamdan explained. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yazid.tr)

 

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5619

Read more »

Halimah Agustina Kamil Gave Evidence on Judicial Review of Act of Marriage

Chairunnisa Jafizham, Halimah Agustina Kamil’s attorney, former wife of Bambang Trihatmodjo, were reading the petition at a hearing of the judicial Act No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, Wednesday (27 / 7)

Halimah Agustina Kamil’s petition, former wife of Bambang Trihatmodjo, held again at the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (27/07/2011). The trial for case No. 38/PUU-IX/2011 about testing the constitutionality of the material of Law 1 / 1974 on Marriage (Marriage Act) is implemented by a Panel chaired by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, accompanied by Achmad Sodiki and Harjono.
Halimah who represented by her legal counsel Chairunnisa Jafizham declared, after making a deeper study of the proceedings preliminary review of Marriage Act, her client decided not to submit repair requests. “Judge Your Honor, after we did a study on the first trial, we assume that the repair, we did not do,” she said.
Furthermore, Halimah through Chairunnisa strengthen the arguments of the petition by submitting proof of P-1 through P-8. Evidence contains: Decision Central Jakarta Religious Court, the Jakarta High Court verdict, ruling the Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgement of Supreme Court Review, Letter of wedlock, ID card and family card, Act 1 / 1974 on Marriage, and the last letter of moving house. “Thus, for the evidence it deemed to have endorsed today,” said Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi tap with a hammer as he signs a one-time evidence approved.
In addition to the evidence, Halimah also filed six experts to be heard at the next session. Chairunnisa call an expert who will be presented by Shinta Nuriah Abdurrahman Wahid.
On Friday (07/08/2011) the Court has opened a preliminary judicial hearing Marriage Act filed by Halimah Agustina Kamil. Halimah testing out the provisions of the divorce terms set forth in Article 39 Paragraph (2) f of Marriage Act along the phrase “between husband and wife will not be able to get along as husband and wife” is contradictory to Article 28D Paragraph (1) and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of 45.
According to Halimah through her attorney, Chairunnisa, wives often take a sacrificed in quarrels and disputes. In fact, the fact that disputes and arguments most often caused by caused by her husband, for example a husband had an affair with another woman. (Annisa Anindya / Nur Rosihin Ana/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5616

Read more »

Salim Alkatiri Reviewed Final and Binding Decision of the Constitutional Court

Principal Petitioner, Salim Alkatiri was reading the plea at a hearing improvement of judicial review of Article 10 paragraph 1 letter a of Act No. 24 of 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (26 / 7)

The review on Act No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court held again at Tuesday (07/26/2011). Assembly with the agenda of this petition were Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi as Chairman of the Panel, and were accompanied by Achmad Sodiki and Anwar Usman. The trial for this case Number 36/PUU-IX/2011 filed by Salim Alkatiri. The material was Article 10 paragraph 1 letter a, of Act No. 24/2003 governing authority of the Constitutional Court to adjudicate at the first and last decision is final.

In front of the panel of the Constitutional Court, Salim improve the legal standing of the Petitioner. ”The most important thing is to point 3, of the legal position of legal standing,” said Salim.

Salim feels aggrieved by the decision of the Court Number 224/PHPU.D VIII/2010 on Election Results Dispute Kab. South Buru pronounced December 31, 2010. In the ruling No. 224/PHPU.D VIII/2010, the Court declared the application partner Salim Alkatiri-La Ode Badwi unacceptable.

Constitutional Court’s decision is final and binding. This has become an obstacle for Salim to make an appeal, so that Salim could not qualify as candidates for the General Election South Buru because it had been a prisoner with a sentence of 2 years in prison. Salim argued that the Court alter its own decision, namely Decision Number 4/PUU-VII/2009, resulting in him can not follow the General Election South Buru.

Constitutional Court Decision No. 4/PUU-VII/2009, dated March 24, 2009 has defined the terms of the provisions of Article 58 f of Law 12/2008 regarding the requirements as a Regional Head and Deputy Head of the Region. Article 58 of Law 12/2008 points f 3 states, “honesty or openness about the background of her identity as an ex-convict”.

Salim admitted that he had revealed his identity as an ex-convict. ”We have expressed openly to the public in the newspaper Suara Maluku in Ambon, Maluku province,” said Salim.

According to him, the Court had violated the verdict Number 4/PUU-VII/2009.”Violate the Constitutional Court ruling that he created himself,” he continued. In fact, Salim added, the decision of Class I Ambon District Court to allow the couple Salim Alkatiri-La Ode Badwi South Buru following the General Election of 2010.(Nur Rosihin Ana/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5612

Read more »

Judicial Review on Act of Forestry: The Government Consider Petition Blurred

Petitioner’s attorney, Muhammad Ali Dharma Utama is listening to the statements of the Government in the trial testing of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b Act No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, Tuesday (26 / 7)

Petitions are not obvious and obscure (obscuur libel) because Petitioner does not clearly describe the applicant’s legal position. It is delivered by the Government, represented by Prasetyo Agung Gunardo in response to the petition for judicial review of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b Act No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, Maskur Anang bin Kemas Anang Muhammad reviewing the Act. Constitutional Court held a hearing to listen to statements of the Government and Parliament are registered with a number 34/PUU-IX/2011 on Tuesday (26 / 7).

“In the description, Petitioner did not explain its legal status as individuals or WN or a private legal entities considering Petitioner argues that as the owner of PT Jaya Mas Ricky. Petitioner did not explain his position and also does not explain his position within the company. Based on the above, then the position of the applicant is considered vague and does not meet the qualifications as required in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court, “said Gunardo.

Furthermore, Gunardo explained that the construction of constitutional rights violations described Petitioner did not expressly unravel. Petitioner argues that the losses caused by the transition function of plantation land owned by the Petitioner by the Government through the Minister of Forestry. If it is true, continued Gunardo, the decision a quo in the domain authority of state administrative officials, so there is no causal link between the losses suffered by the applicant with the provisions petitioned for review. ”Based on the foregoing, it should be legal efforts undertaken by the applicant is through the judiciary, namely the Administrative Court or the Court,” he explained.

According Gunardo, specifically against the authority in Article 4 paragraph (2) letter b law is intended to accommodate the dynamics of development, both outside and in the forestry sector in the forestry sector itself. On the other hand, did not rule out the existence of certain zoning into the forest. Further regulation regarding certain zoning areas into forest land or forest to forest area is not stipulated in Government Regulation Number 44 Year 2004 on Forestry Planning.” The provisions of Article 4 paragraph (3) a quo law determines that the acquisition of forests by the state shall respect customary laws as long as it exists and its existence is recognized, and not contrary to national interests,” he said.

In addition, control of forest by the state, the Government also pay attention to the rights of existing soil. Petitioners’ argument against the existence of losses suffered due to custody pursuant to a general verdict of the judiciary, according to the Government is not the constitutional rights and / or authorities referred to Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law, but linked to criminal acts committed by the applicant, that is by deliberately moving the others for destruction of property of others. ”Based on the above explanation, the Government asked His Excellency Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia to deliver a verdict stating that the applicant has no legal standing position or a clear legal standing. Reject the petition for judicial review petition in whole or at least claim petition is niet ontvankelijk verklaard or unacceptable, “he explained.

Panel of Judges, chaired by the Chief Court Moh Mahfud MD, accompanied by eight other judges’ constitution ratified 40 pieces of evidence. ”Then, the next hearing would be opened if the applicant was willing to call witnesses or experts. So you dated two slowest were already enrolled when presenting expert. If it does not register on 2 expert or witness, meaning assume this examination fairly, so schedule the next hearing is the pronunciation of the verdict. And for that if indeed the pronunciation of the verdict, then surely both the Government and the applicant, no later than December 9 convey the conclusions of the overall course of this trial, “explained Mahfud.

Through a lawyer, Muhammad Ali Dharma Utama, Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights violated due to the enactment of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b of the Forestry Law. According to Dharma Ali, a quo article is contrary to Article 27 Paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), 28D Paragraph (3), and 28H Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 4 Paragraph 92) of the Forestry Act states “(2) Forest control by the State referred to in paragraph (1) authorizes the government to: (b) determine the status of certain areas as forest area or forest area as non-forest area”. Petitioners argued the article to give freedom to the Minister of Forestry to determine the status of certain areas as forest or non-forest areas such as forest areas have been given an opportunity to the Minister of Forestry to break the law by manipulating and manipulate the soil to be over the functions that are outside the forest area are not yet a forest area. As happened in the estates applicant who is in agricultural cultivation area has been converted by the Minister of Forestry as a forest industry plants. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5611

Read more »

Fleeing the petition, Judicial Review Act Criminal Code and Law on Judicial Authority Not Received

Principal applicant and Aryanto Nugroho and Tjahjadi Nugroho, Commissioner and President Director of PT. Mutual Tlaga Jaya, Semarang, Central Java, while hearing the reading of the Decision Testing Book of the Law of Civil Law (Article 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, and 1918) and Law No. 4 Year 2004 regarding Judicial Power (Article 1, 23, 28 and 33). In Amar Decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) can not accept applications both on Monday (25 / 7) in the courtroom Plenary Court Building.

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)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5606

Read more »

SKLN Kab. East Kutai Vs Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources: Mining Experts Affirm Applicant is a Local Government Authority

Justices of the Constitutional Assembly of Experts are listening to testimony from the applicant Prof. Dr. Laica Marzuki (Professor of Law Faculty of Hasanuddin and former Constitutional Court judge) in the Session of the Dispute Authority of State Institutions (SKLN) between the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) and the Regional Government of East Kutai regency, on Thursday (21 / 7) in the Plenary Session of the House MK.

Jakarta, MKOnline - Four experts from the Petitioner delivered his statement before the Plenary Session of the case SKLN between the Ministry of Energy and the Government District. East Kutai, on Thursday (21 / 7). The four experts who delivered his statement, Prof. Dr. Laica Marzuki (Professor of Law Faculty of Hasanuddin and ex-Judge Court), Prof. Muchsan (Former Supreme Court Justice), Dr. Indra Butler (Lecturer Unpad FH), and Prof.. Mas’ud Said (Lecturer Faculty of Law University of Malang).
 
The trial was the case with Number 3/SKLN-IX/2011 chaired by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court (MK), Moh. Mahfud MD. Petitioner’s expert was given his first submit his statement, namely Laica Marzuki.
 
Ex-judge constitution deliver related interpretations of Article 1 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution in conjunction with Article 18 paragraph (1) and subsection (5) the same law. In the articles stipulated that Indonesia is a unitary state is a republic and is divided into areas of the province. Further areas of the province is further divided into counties and cities whose governments are run with broad autonomy. However, government affairs governed by the laws into the affairs of the central government.
 
Further Laica said that the affairs of the central government according to the 1945 Constitution, namely the political affairs of foreign, defense, security, justice, monetary and national fiscal, and religion. ”Outside of the central government affairs, government affairs under the authority of other autonomous regions. This mining excluding central government affairs, “said Laica.
 
Laica also said Law. 4 in 2009 on Mineral and Coal has made local governments, especially local government district. East Kutai unable to perform its constitutional authority to regulate and manage their own affairs in the fields of energy and mineral resources.
 
“The mining of minerals and energy it ought to be a constitutional government or the provinces, kabipaten / town in casu the applicant District Government of East Kutai, East Kalimantan,” said Laica.
 
The same thing also expressed GMU Professors, Muhsan. Related to regional autonomy, Muhsan said that the local government, both provincial and regency / city that existed as an autonomous region has the broadest authority onotom too.”According to Prof. Mr. Durpsteen in his book ‘Administratiief Recht’, otonomo authority is empowered to take care of their own households which include the authority to regulate and manage its own human resources, financial manage their own authority, and authority to empower the community, “said Muhsan.
 
Furthermore, Muhsan said, according to Article 33 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, local government has the right to explore the sources of finance including managing the natural resources in the area of administration.However, after the advent of Law no. 4 of 1999 which clearly states the management of mining Mining under the authority of central government.
 
“Supposedly, an authority must be comprehensive both procedural and substantive. This means, the management authority that includes the mining licensing, zoning, or operation of mining activities is a local government authority, “said Muhsan. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh) 

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5600

Read more »

Petitioner’s Experts: Asean Charter Displace People’s Sovereignty

Sri Edi Swasono become the Experts of the Petitioner reviewing the Act No. 38 of 2008 concerning Ratification of the Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [Article 1, Paragraph (5)and Article 2 Paragraph (2) sub n], Wednesday (20 / 7) at the Plenary Room

The existence of the Charter of the Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which was ratified by Act No. 38/2008, has eliminated the sovereignty of the people as mandated by the Constitution. In other words, provisions in the Charter, particularly Article 1 Paragraph (5) and Article 2 Paragraph (2) letter n, has been ‘liquidated’ the existence of the state. It declared by Sri Edi Swasono as he became an expert in a court case number 33/PUU-IX/2011 Wednesday (20 / 7) in the Plenary session. "Market sovereignty displaces people sovereignty," he said.

According to him, the opinion that free trade will prosper the people is just an illusion. The single market policy or a free market in ASEAN will only marginalize the poor, instead of eliminating poverty. "What happens is that the process of impoverishment and disablement," he said. He stressed that international agreements should be in harmony with the Constitution of 1945. Especially relevant economic, must be in accordance with the mandate of Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution.

On that occasion, the Petitioner did not present only Edy Swasono as an expert. Actually, according to Petitioner, there were seven experts and three witnesses to be presented by his side. However, that may be present at the hearing this time only four experts and two witnesses. For expert, they were Syamsul Hadi, Khudori and Ichsanudin Noorsy. As for witnesses, there were Nurul Hidayati and Surati. Both are batik manufacturer and merchants that are considered to feel the negative impact of the enactment of the free market.

In his statement, Syamsul Hadi also concurred with Edy. According to him, the agreement of ASEAN countries to build an integrated single market, benefiting countries with established economies. The existence of a single market and production base in ASEAN region resulted in competition and competition is not balanced.

In fact, according to him, agreements and agreements contained in the ASEAN Charter is too normative and dreamily. "It represents the interests of grassroots communities in ASEAN," he said while explaining the contribution of the ASEAN Charter in the social and cultural aspects. In fact, ASEAN is difficult to perform concrete actions in solving problems that occur in some ASEAN member countries. "As the coup in Thailand and human rights abuses in Myanmar," he gave an example.

Similarly, Ichsanuddin Noorsy opinionated the agreement to build a free market and the single market in ASEAN is a setting of global economy that embraces neoliberal ideology. And this ideology, it can be said to be contrary to the spirit of pro-people economy is mandated by the Constitution.

In the trial, he did not forget to strengthen his argument by citing the opinion of the Nobel-winning economist and presentation of data from several studies. He had time to challenge the government representatives were present to argue the data and opinion."Ruin this data," he pleaded. Finally, he closed his presentation by asking the judges to consider carefully before verdict. He advised that the Court not only test by using a stone of test articles of the 1945 Constitution, but also the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution.

Meanwhile, Khudori in his presentation highlighted the impact of free trade in ASEAN towards the fate of agriculture in Indonesia. He gives the title of expert testimony, "The Impact of ASEAN Free Trade Agreement on Agriculture in Indonesia". He also concluded, Law 38/2008 should be canceled because it contravenes the 1945 Constitution.

Hard PositionOn the same occasion, the trial was also attended by representatives of the Government. They consisted of three ministries, namely Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Ministry of Trade, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The statement of the Government had delivered by Linggawaty Hakim.

Linggawaty conveyed the ratification of the ASEAN Charter by Law 38/2008 does not automatically make such international agreements as the national norms. "There is no law in Indonesia, including the Constitution which expressly states that the ratification of the treaty into law to transform the provisions of international law as national norms," he said.

In fact, according to him, tying the Charter applies not depend on the Law 38/2008. "(Law 38/2008) is a legal basis to bind the Government of Indonesia to the ASEAN Charter," he said. The impact if the Court granted the petition, Indonesia will result in a hard position. He explained that under international law, national provisions cannot be used to justify a failed state in implementing an international treaty. "Indonesia will still have international legal obligations and be bound by the provisions of the ASEAN Charter," he explained. (Dodi/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5598

Read more »

Not Effective, Act of Health on Smoking Warning Reviewed

Petitioner attorney , Mustakim (center) reading the petition in front of the judges on trial reviewing Article 114 of Act No. 36 of 2009 on Health on Monday (18 / 7) in Meeting Room Panel

Two doctors who focus on the dangers of tobacco in cigarettes, Widyastuti Soerojo and Muherman Harun, along with the Association of Public Health Student Senate of Indonesia (ISMKMI) filed a petition for judicial review of Article 114 of Act No 36/2009 on Health on Monday (18 / 7). Petitioner considers written warnings on cigarette packs ineffective.
 
Petitioner considers the explanation of Article 114 on Act of Health violated Article 199 paragraph (1). In Article 199 paragraph (1) stated, "Any person who intentionally produce or put cigarettes into the territory of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia does not include health warnings with pictures form referred to in Article 114 shall be punished imprisonment of 5 (five) years and a fine at most of Rp 500,000,000 (five hundred million dollars). "
 
While the explanation of Article 114 states, "The definition of 'health warnings' in writing that this provision is clear and easily legible and can be accompanied by pictures or other forms".
 
The existence of the word "may" in the explanation of the Act on Article 114 according to the Petitioner made the warning in Article 199 is not absolute. Thus, cigarette manufacturers can use the dangers of cigarette warnings in written form only without including pictures. In fact, according to Petitioner, the warning in the form of images more effectively and openly in conveying information about the dangers of smoking compared to only write the warning.
 
Mustakim, Petitioner's attorney said the supposed explanation of the health law section 114 reads, "The definition of 'health warnings' in writing that this provision is clear and easily legible and accompanied by pictures or other forms."
 
Panel consisting of Judge Mohammad Alim as chairman and was accompanied by Usman Anwar and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi as members of the inaugural session of the delivery of advice to the Petitioner. Alim suggested that the applicant reiterated the terms of use phrases or words used in a more precise explanation of the Act of Health on Article 114. Meanwhile, Fadlil ask the petitioner to explain where the article being reviewed by petitioner or article which is contrary to the explanation of another article. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/Yazid.tr)

 

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5590

Read more »

Again, Act of Special Autonomy for Papua Reviewed

Constitutional Judge Hamdan Zoelva (Chief of Panel) accompanied by M. Akil Mochtar and Anwar Usman (each as member of the Panel) to verify the petition in the trial of judicial review of Article 17 paragraph (1) of Act No. 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua, Monday (18 / 7) in Panel Room

Act No. 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua re-examined by the Constitutional Court (MK), Monday (18 / 7). The case registered in No. 41/PUU-IX/2011. Petitioner was Habel Rumbiak. He said Article 17 paragraph (1) contained multiple interpretations on its phrase and it gave rise to obscurity.

Hael Rumbiak through its legal counsel Libert Cristo considered phrase "can be re-elected" caused confusion. The reason, the phrase can mean someone who has run for local office in one election, the next period could run again. The Article reads: "(1) the term of office of Governor and Deputy Governor are 5 (five) years and may be reelected for a subsequent term of office".

In fact, according to the Petitioner, as presented Cristo, someone who has run twice can not run again in the next local elections. "There is no firmness in that phrase so that it can bring understanding of people can run for more than two times. For that, we ask assertiveness course in this article, "Cristo said.

After Parties principal applicant submit his petition, the Panel then provide advice that can be used or not by the applicant on the repair petition. Members of the Panel of Justices, M. Akil Mochtar of the occasion suggested that the applicant explained the legal standing of Petitioner. "Please explain the legal standing of Petitioner. Do ordinary citizens, if ever so head area, whether once ran for local office? Please explain it, "Akil suggested.

Akil also suggested that the applicant lists of losses suffered by the Petitioner due to the interpretation of phrase in Article 17 paragraph (1) the Papua Special Autonomy Law. With a loss to explain the perceived constitutional petition, Akil said the judges found the whole picture of the cases filed.

Regarding the legal standing and constitutional losses suffered by the Petitioner, Chief Judge Hamdan Zoelva Panel also confirmed it. "The issue of legal standing it needs to be degraded. Because if not, the principal application you can not be checked. Legal standing is also closely related to constitutional rights or loss of you. So please explain, "Hamdan reminded that advice Applicants submit repair requests at least 14 working days from the time the trial ends. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5589

Read more »

Article 65 on Act of Constitutional Court Concerning Advocate Independence Reviewed

The petitioners reading the plea in the judicial preliminary hearing Article 65 of Law No.24/2003 on the Constitutional Court, Monday (18 / 7) in Court Building

Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing of Act No.24/2003 on the Constitutional Court - Case No.42/PUU-IX/2011 - on Monday (18 / 7) afternoon. Petitioner is Suhardi Somomoelyono. He is a Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the General Collective Employment Advocate Indonesia (KPP KKAI) and Chairman of the Central Board of Advocates and Lawyers of Indonesia (DPP HAPi).

Applicant to apply for judicial review against the charge of Article 65 of Act of the Constitutional Court because the charge article is contradictory to Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 65 stated that the Supreme Court can not be a party to the dispute over the authority of state institutions whose authorities are granted by the 1945 Constitution to the Constitutional Court.

In the legal standing of Petitioner explained that the applicant is the founder and Chairman of the KPP KKAI and Chairman of the DPP HAPI. Working Committee of Indonesian Advocates (KKAI) - in which there are seven organizations advocate, among others IKADIN, AAI, IPHI, SPI - as a tangible manifestation of the unity of all advocate / attorney / consultant / legal counsel Indonesian citizens who run the profession advocates.

Then the enactment of Act No.18/2003 on the Advocate, then place the one professional organization that advocates Sharia Lawyers Association of Indonesia (APSI) set out in Article 32 Paragraph (3) of the Advocate. Thus, there are 8 professional organization known advocate in the Advocates Act.

Eight professional organizations that advocate a form of federation, association with Article 28 Paragraph (1) of Act No.18/2003, which reads "The organization advocates is the only container profession advocate a free and independent and established in accordance with the provisions of this law, with the intent and purpose to improve the quality of professional advocate ".

Petitioner explained, the state agency called KKAI regulated by Act No.18/2003 concerning Advocates. While the Supreme Court provided for in Article 24 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, as the state agency KKAI fittings are parallel to the judicial authorities of the Supreme Court." Both the Supreme Court KKAI and each has its independence and authority in the sense that there is no authority of each intervention," Petitioner said.

Intervention of KKAI Authority
Petitioner continued, despite the Supreme Court and KKAI each has rights and authority, but in practice constitutional, the Supreme Court has always intervened by issuing a letter of authority KKAI No.089/KMA/VI/2010 Supreme Court dated June 25, 2010 Jo. Chief Justice No.052/KMA/HK.01/III/2011 letter dated March 23 of 2011.The letter mentions "In essence, the organization advocates agreed and is the only container profession advocate is Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI)".

According to the Petitioner, the words of the Supreme Court in the letter was not one soul with 8 professional organizations advocate stipulated in Article 32 Paragraph 3, the provisions of the Code of Ethics of Indonesian Advocates of Article 22 Paragraph (3) set the date of May 23, 2002, authorized under Article 33 of Act No.18/2003Advocates. "Therefore KKAI is a state institution whose authority is granted by the 1945 Constitution, which has a direct interest in the disputed authority as mandated by Article 61 Paragraph (1) of Act No.24/2003 on the Constitutional Court," Petitioner added.

That the bodies referred to as KKAI established pursuant to Article 24 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution is the fundamental staats norm (norm of the state) as the executor of the Act provided for in Article 34 of Act No.18/2003 on the Advocate, which reads "the implementing rules governing lawyers remain valid as long as not contrary to or not yet formed or replaced with legislation that just as the executor of this Act ".

With the stipulation, it shows that the participation of eight professional organizations advocate contained in Article 32 Paragraph (3) Law Advocates can be run. In addition, the Code of Ethics of Indonesian Advocate of Article 22 Paragraph (3) governing KKAI, then it passed under Article 33 of Act No.18/2003 remain in force.

"Hence the establishment of the organization as a state agency representing 8 professional organization lawyers remain as the parent organization and as executor of the Advocate Law," Dominggus Maurits Luitnan as Petitioner's attorney said. (Nano Tresna A./mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5584

Read more »

Disputes on the Results of the General Election of Landak Regency: Court Rejected Syahdan-Honorius’ Application

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.

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)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5579

Read more »

Court Reviewed Act of Manpower

Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman (chairman of the panel) was accompanied by Hamdan Zoelva and M. Akil Mochtar (each as a member of the panel) reviewing the petition on the trial of Act No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Thursday (14 / 7)

The Court continued reviewing the Act No. 13/2003 on Manpower on Thursday (14 / 7). Court Registrar had registered the case with Number 37/PUU-IX/2011 filed by three petitioners. They were Ugan Gandar, Eko Wahyu, and Rommel Antonius Ginting.

In the trial of improvement petition, the Petitioners were represented by legal counsel. Petitioners have revised the application in accordance with that suggested by the Council of Panel Judges, chaired by Constitutional Court Justice Anwar Usman and accompanied by Hamdan Zoelva and Akil Mochtar.

In a previous trial, Petitioners argued that their constitutional rights violated due to the enactment of Article 155 Paragraph (2). Article 155 Paragraph (2) states "As long as the decision of an industrial relations dispute settlement body has not been established, employers and workers / laborers shall continue to perform all its obligations".

At the hearing, Petitioner also filed evidence. "Petitioners filed 13 evidences of P-1through P-13. And, one additional evidence, then there are 14 items of evidence. So this evidence was passed, "Usman Anwar said. 

In the main petition, the Petitioner judge Article 155 Paragraph (2) contrary to Article28D Paragraph (1) since the implementation in the field, the article raises two interpretations. The first interpretation of 'not specified' means only to the industrial relations court of first instance. There is also a second interpretation to the Supreme Court level. Therefore, in a suit or its petitum, Petitioner requested that the Article 155 paragraph (2) declared unconstitutional conditional (conditionally constitutional)."Throughout the clause 'not defined' in Article 155 paragraph (2) is interpreted to court industrial relations and binding, "Petitioner's attorney said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5583

Read more »

Terms of Divorce on Marriage Act Reviewed in Court

Act No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage reviewed in the Constitutional Court (MK), Friday (8 / 7). This time the divorce terms in Article 39 paragraph (2) f (Explanation) Marriage Act filed by Halimah Agustina Binti Abdullah Kamil told the Constitutional Court to be reviewed against the 1945 Constitution.

In case No. 38/PUU-IX/2011, Halimah as Petitioner and Choirunnisa Jafizham represented as legal counsel. Choirunnisa argued that the article has hurt his constitutional rights. In front of the judges of the Constitutional Assembly, led by Achmad Sodiki, accompanied by Anwar Usman and Harjono, respectively as members, the Petitioner said that Article 39 Paragraph (2) f haruf about marriage throughout the phrase "between husband and wife will not be able to get along as husband wife "incompatible with the Constitution RI 1945.

"Whereas the Constitution, namely Article 28D paragraph 1 of the 45 Constitution said, 'everyone is entitled to recognition, security, protection, legal certainty and a fair and equal treatment before the law." Likewise, in paragraph 2 of Article 28H 45 Constitution, which reads, 'Everyone is entitled to special treatment facilities and to obtain the same opportunities and benefits in order to achieve equality and justice,' "attorney Choirunnisa said represented as Petitioner.

Further in the petition, Petitioners argue with seeing most of the events that occurred, most of the wife who sacrificed in the quarrels and disputes. According to him, her husband became the most frequent causes of disputes and quarrels, for example a husband had an affair with another woman, would have a quarrel in the household.

Choirunnisa compare the provisions of the Article with the provision that is in Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). BW no longer included in the turmoil and strife which continued as a reason for divorce. "Article 209 BW specify the reason of divorce, namely adultery has occurred, leaving the residence with a bad etikad, imposed a prison sentence of 5 years or more severe penalties again, after the marriage took place; heavy torture or ill-treatment, conducted by one of husband and wife it against the other in such a way, thus endangering the salvation of souls, or bring the wounds are dangerous, " Choirunnisa reading the petition.

Furthermore Choirunnisa say that Islamic law also regulates the divorce, which is due to adultery wife, or wives nusus although it has been advised repeatedly, the wife of a drunkard, a gambler or a crime which could disrupt domestic harmony.

Therefore, in his petition the Petitioner argues that Article 39 paragraph 2 letter f of Act No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage does not guarantee protection and legal certainty and justice to a wife. For that, the Petitioner appealed to the Court to declare does not have the legal power to remember the article.

Against the request, Achmad Sodiki, as leader of the Assembly waiting repairs to the applicant's request for 14 days. "A mother waiting for the trial to come," he said.(Shohibul Umam/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5567

Read more »

Dispute over Election Result of Head of Regional District Kulon Progo: Petitioner Reveals Involvement of Regents

The results of the general elections of regional heads of Kulon Progo Regency sued to the Court. The first hearing was held on Friday (8/7) at the Court Panel. The judge in the case numbered panels 78/PHPU.D-IX/2011 consists of Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki, Harjono, and Anwar Usman .

Petitioner in this case consists of two pairs of candidates for regional head. They are the candidate number 3, Suprapta-So'im (Petitioner I) and the candidate sequence number 2, Mulyono-Ahmad Sumiyanto (Petitioner II). They were represented by legal counsel Zahru Arqom and Doni Cahyono.

While the Respondent, the General District Election Commission of Kulon Progo attended by the chairman Siti Ghoniyatun and along with several other Commission members. "For our next trial we will use the advocates and to include stakeholders," Siti explained.

In the main petition, the petition reveals that there has been structured, systematic and massive fraud. At least, there are three main issues; Kulon Progo Regents policy that have influenced and favoring one candidate, a black campaign, and the holding of the General Election with disabilities.

"The selection and determination of KPPS (Organizing Committee Ballot) without going through the procedures that have been determined," Zahru said. Therefore, he asked the Court to decide on re-voting.

For the next session, the trial will be held on Thursday (14/7) morning. The applicant will present two experts and 20 witnesses. Meanwhile, the Respondent will present the Election Supervisory Committee and examine witnesses through video conferencing. (Dodi/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5565

Read more »

Government: Specific Time Work Agreement and Outsourcing are Constitutional Mandate

Specific Time Work Agreement (PKWT) and outsourcing regulated in Article 59 and Article 64 of Act no. 13/2007 concerning Manpower assessed as part of the government's obligation to provide opportunities for all people of Indonesia to get a decent job as mandated by Article 27 Paragraph 2 of the constitution RI 1945.

The opinion was delivered by Sunarno, Head of Legal Department Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration, as the Government Party in front of the judges of the Constitutional led by Moh. Mahfud MD in the Plenary Session on Judicial Review of Case Number 27/PUU-IX/2011 Law no. 13/2007 on Employment, Wednesday (6/7).

On that occasion, Sunarno also rejected Petitioner's argument, presented in the previous trial, that Article 59 and Article 64 of Labor Law contradictory to Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D Paragraphs (2), and Article 33 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. According to him, the article gave a fair and decent treatment for all citizens in the employment relationship, in order to receive just compensation and commensurate with the work he is performing. "So that it enacted the Employment Agreement for specific time periods (PKWT) and the delivery of some of the work to other companies or outsourcing," he explained.

For outsourcing workers, according to Sunarno, it can use all his ability at work. According to him, they will gain the skills they have not had before and if you already have such capabilities, then the workers will increase their ability to work in outsourcing. "The work will be more useful if the work is able to apply the knowledge they get from companies they receive," he explained.

On the occasion, the Petitioner to produce witnesses Moh. Fadli Alwi and Moh. Yunus Budi Santoso, meter readers workers of State Electricity Company (PLN). To the Justices of the Constitutional Assembly, Fadli and Yunus complained how hard it be outsourced workers. According to Yunus, before he was introduced as the outsourced workers, he became a cooperation employee. "After the new rules, we feel there is less security because each year the company changed its outsourcing based on the winning bidder. So that we seemed to be a new employee continuously, "Yunus said.

Yunus added that shelter companies differ in the payroll system. From 2004 until now he has changed in three companies, namely PT Data Energy Info Media, PT. Bukit Alam Barisani, and PT Mustika Berkah Abadi. "The management change of outsourcing winner in PLN turned out to cause wages to fall. I once asked the company, why it go down, it should rise. They replied that they have their own management that is different than before, "Yunus said. (Shohibul Umam/mh/Yazid.tr)

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5555

Read more »

Jambi Police Denies Involved in Winnings Candidate on Ballot Repeat in Tebo Regency

Jakarta, MKOnline - Jambi regional police chief had never directed, ordered, either orally or in writing to the Tebo Police personnel to provide support to one candidate in a re-vote (PSU) Election Tebo Regency, Jambi Province. Thus affirmed Fauzi Shawwal, when giving testimony before the Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court (MK), Monday (07/04/2011) Election disputes in court cases Tebo. This information is to ward off accusations alignments Jambi Provincial Police told the couple Sukandar-Hamdi (Suka-Hamdi). "Police have no interest to anyone the winner," said Head Binkum Jambi Police, Fauzi Syawal. 

Fauzi also denied witness statements mate-Muttalib Yopi Sri Sapto Eddy (Yopi-Sapto) named M. Zainuri at a hearing before the action of distributing leaflets in the form of support to partner-Like Hamdi using the official car of the type Strada patoli Police. "Never in particular the police car used by the Tebo Police winning team of candidates," said Fauzi. 

Meanwhile, the Police Tebo, M. Arifin, said it has lowered its personnel to secure the implementation of 252 PSU Tebo. "H-1, all Police personnel have been placed at polling places. Implementation of TPS security held on the day, until the calculation at the KDP. Then the guard escorting ballot boxes from the KDP to the Election Commission, "he explained. 

The trial for the case number on any dispute 33/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Tebo Election was conducted by a Panel consisting of M. Akil Mochtar as Chairman of the Panel, accompanied by Members of the Panel, and Muhammad Alim Hamdan Zoelva, which scheduled the hearing of evidence. 

In line with Fauzi Arifin also denied any involvement in the award of the official car of police candidates. "That district police car, but its shape Strada. There is a (car) service which Strada, "asked the Chairman of the Panel M. Akil Mochtar. "No, your honor," said Arifin brief. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh)

 

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5544

Read more »

The Court Stated, Phrase "Obligations Following verification" Political Parties Act Unconstitutional

Jakarta, MKOnline - Constitutional Court (MK) grant the petition in case No. 15/PUU-IX/2011. Court stated in Article 51 paragraph (1), Article 51 paragraph (1a) along the phrase "Verification of Political Parties as referred to in paragraph (1)", Article 51 paragraph (1b), and Article 51 paragraph (1c) of Law No. 2 / 2011 concerning Amendment to Law Number 2 of 2008 on Political Parties in conflict with the Constitution of 1945. 

Declared by the Constitutional Court verdict in the trial on Monday (4 / 7), at the Plenary Court Room. "Petition of the Petitioners argued the law," said Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh Mahfud MD, when reading the conclusion of the verdict. 

The Court believes that setting the legal status of political parties, either by Act 2 / 2008 on Political Parties and Law 10/2008 on General Elections Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representative Council and Legislative Assembly, were appropriate and correct. "Because of the political parties still acknowledged the status of legal entity status of legal entities must be continued to receive constitutional protection by Article 28C Paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28E Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution," said Constitutional Court Muhammad Alim. 

In this case the Court agrees with Petitioners that the phrase "still recognized by the obligation to adjust to the law by following the verification" contained in Article 51 paragraph (1) Act 2 / 2011 is not clear meaning. The phrase "duty to follow the verification", according to the Constitutional Court, has the legal effect of the existence of the applicant as a legal political party, namely whether the results of verification can directly affect the existence of political parties in this case the Petitioner. That is, as a political party would lose the status of the applicant legal entity because it does not pass the verification. 

Court's opinion, it would violate the rule of law against the Petitioners that the Act had previously been guaranteed its existence as a legal political party. "Law makers should distinguish between the procedures for the formation or establishment of political parties with rules regarding the conditions imposed on political parties to a political party can follow the election, as well as institutional provisions governing the House," Alim said. 

According to the Constitutional Court, political parties in the 1945 system has a very important function because the 1945 Constitution explicitly provides a constitutional right to political parties, especially in Article 6A Paragraph (2), Article 8 paragraph (3) and Article 22E Paragraph (3) of 1945. Therefore, political parties should obtain legal certainty to ensure that their constitutional rights, including the applicant as a political party that has had a position as a legal entity. 

"Ensured the continued existence of political parties are legal entities that fail to put their representatives in the representative institutions in a time of general elections, will be spared also the season of establishment of political parties on each before the election," wrote the Court in the verdict as thick as 53 pages. 

Petitioner in this case consists of 14 political parties. Among them are the Regional Unity Party (PPD), Crescent Star Party (PBB), Prosperous Peace Party (PDS), Democratic Renewal Party (PDP), Employers 'and Workers' Party of Indonesia (GN), Patriot Party, National Party Populist Fortress Indonesia (Indonesia PNBK ), Pioneer Party, etc.. (Dodi / mh) 

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=5545

Read more »