---

Constitutional Court held two court hearings i.e.  the dispute of state institution authority  between Indonesian Broadcasting Commission  against the President of the Republic of Indonesia c.q. Minister of Communication and Information and also court hearing on the judicial review of Article 33 sub article (5) of Law number 32/2002 on Broadcasting against Article 28D sub article  (1) of  1945 Constitution on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 at 01.30 pm at Constitutional Court building on Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat 7 Central Jakarta.

The Indonesian Broadcasting  Commission  (KPI) as the plaintiff submitted the petition on the determination of temporary halt regarding the authority on issuing the license of organizing the broadcasting and the authority of making regulation in broadcasting because of the dispute between KPI as the plaintiff and the Minister of Communication and Information (MenKominfo) as the defendant. In this case, KPI thought that their constitutional authority was taken, hindered, neglected, and/or harmed by the President through MenKominfo. The dispute of that constitutional authority is about issuing the license on organizing the broadcasting and making the regulation in the matter of broadcasting.

In the case of this authority dispute, KPI asked  Constitutional Court to determine 4 items. First, determine the authority of issuing the license on organizing the broadcasting is not the authority of the defendant. Second, determine the authority  of issuing the license on organizing the broadcasting belongs to the State which is given to the plaintiff. Third, determine the authority of making the regulation on the field of broadcasting is not the authority of the defendant because there has been independent state  institution which has been formed to carry out the duty of the State in the field of broadcasting, that is the plaintiff. Fourth, determine the authority of organizing the regulation in the field of broadcasting must be carried out by independent state  institution which is formed to carry out the duty of the State in the field of broadcasting, that is the plaintiff. Meanwhile in the petition of judicial review, the plaintiff asked  Constitutional Court to determine that Article 62 sub article (1) and (2), and Article 33 sub article (5) as long as related to “ by the State” is against the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

The panel which was  chaired by Justice Maruarar, S.H. advised Dr. S. Sinansari Ecip, Sasa Djuarsa, Ph.D. and Bimo Nugroho Sekundatmo, S.E., M.Si. from the plaintiff in order to revise their petition and could give the evidences if the petition which is submitted is truly the case of dispute of state institution authority. Before closing the court session, the  panel gave two weeks to the plaintiff to revise their petition. (Writter: Prana Patrayoga/Translator: Donny Y.)

---