Constitutional Court conducted a trial on case number 26/SKLN-V/2007 on Dispute Over State’s Body’s Authorities filed by Independent Electoral Commission (KIP) Southeast Aceh Regency as Petitioner I and People Representative Board (DPRK) for Southeast Aceh Regency as Petitioner II with KIP Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD) Province as Petitionee I, Governor of NAD Province as Petitionee II, and President of RI cq. Minister of Home Affair (Mendagri) as Petitionee III on Wednesday (16/1), in the plennary room of the Constitutional Court with the agenda of hearing comments from the Petitionees, hearing information from Direcly Related Parties and Experts from both the Petitioners’ side and the Petitionees’ side.
The trial was attended by Abdullah Saleh as expert from the Petitionee I and Rahmat Fadhil, SP as a witness from Petitionee I. Meanwhile the expert presented by Petitionee II was Denny Indrayana, S.H., LL.M., Ph.D. and Moh. Daud Yoesoef, S.H., M.H also witnesses from Petitionee II, Harun Al-Rasyid and Andi Railan. From the Petitioners side, they only presented an expert, Prof. Dr. Ana Erliana., S.H., M.A.

At the beginning of the trial, the Legal Counsel of the Petitioners, Andi M. Asrun explained that the intention of bringing the case to the court was because KIP of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province had taken over illegally the authority of KIP of Southeast Aceh Regency to count the regional election voting result that resulted in the invalidation of the result made by KIP of Southeast Aceh Regency to the DPRK of Southeast Aceh. ”Therefore we plead the Constitution Justice Board to cancel the result of KIP of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province and the letter sent by the Governor to the Minister of Home Affair, also to declare the take-over as an illegal action and the authoritative body to conduct the Regional Election for Regent and Vice Regent is KIP Aceh Tenggara,” said Asrun.

Responding to the statement, Prof. Dr. Ana Erliana., S.H., M.A as Expert from the Petitioner sait that explicitly, based on the 1945 Constitution, State Body was as mentioned having attributive authority or distribution of state power based on 1945 Constitution and did not have a representative. Even though so, according to Ana, of course we had to be careful because it only regulated the basic ideas. “After the ammendment, The 1945 Constitution is open for law development through implicit interpretation, for example which should be observed, the name of State’s Bodies or the limited authorities,” Ana pointed out.
Whereas according to the Expert from Petitionee II, Denny Indrayana, S.H., LL.M., Ph.D.the case filed the Petitoners even though it was made in the form of Dispute over State’s Body Authority’s case, the point of the case was actually dispute over the result of the regional election in Southeast Aceh Regency which should be setlled in Supreme Court and not in the Constitutional Court.

On the statement of the expert from the Petitioner II side, the Legal Counsel of the Petitioner side, Doni Sianipar said that his side on this case did not file a case on the result of the electio but more to the constitutional rights od the Petitioner that were taken over illegally by the KIP of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province. ”Actually, it is the justice that we are pleading, we don’t care who is going to be elected,” stated Rasyidin Pagan as the Principle Petitioner.
The debate in the 3.5 hours of trial had not reached the final words. Each party still stood on the authorities they had. To attain fairness in the trial, the Head of the Justice Board, Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H., decided to install another trial for hearing information of the witnesses from both sides as the agenda. ”Before the verdict reading was scheduled, to be fair, in the next trial we demand the Petitioner and Petitionees Sebelum dijadwalkan sidang putusan, supaya adil, pada sidang selanjutnya kami minta to bring their witnesses before the court to have a cross-argument,” Jimly requested. (Andhini Sayu Fauzia/Yogi Djatnika)