CHECKING THE REVISION OF SERDANG BEDAGAI AREA EXPANSION PETITION
Image


Constitutional Court (MK) conducted trial on Act No. 36 Year 2003  on The Forming of Samosir and Serdang Bedagai Regency in North Sumatera (UU Samosir), Thursday (28/2), with the agenda is Checking The Revision of Petition.
In a trial before (13/2), The Petitioners was asked to explain about their Legal Standing, whether they are The Unity of Customary Law Society as well as explained in Article 18B Paragraph (2) of the 1945’s Constitution, or they are a group of people who had the same aims. Then, about the formal trial of Act No.36 Year 2003, The Petitioners were advised not to petite it. On the other hand,  it is advised to be the reason of petitioners, despite the other losses which could not be categorized to constitutional losses.

Responding the advise given by The Constitution Justice Panel Board, The Petitioners’ Legal Counsel explained that  The Petitioners  were not The Unity of Customary Law Society  as well as explained in Article 18B Paragraph (2) of the 1945’s Constitution, but they were a group of people who had the same aims. So that, The Petitioners stated that they took The Power Attorney given by society, and replace it by support statement. “To show you that it is not reconstructed, but is a pure aspiration from the community”, added Dirhamsah Tousa.

Despite that, The Petitioners also took the petition’s formal trial. So that, they only requested material trial of Article 4 Letter k,l,m,n, and Article 6 Paragraph (2d), and The Enclosure of a quo Act. Then, about their constitutional loss, Dirhamsyah said that The Petitioners only postulated  in Article 28E Paragraph (3) and Article 28I Paragraph (2) 1945’s Constitution.

After explained the revision of their petition, The Petitioners also given additional evidences which were disrespected work termination letters for nine Sub-district Heads in Bangun Purba Regency which shown that there were vertical conflict there.   

Responding the petition, if The Petitioners were really supported by the community, Constitution Justice H. Harjono said that the setting of Kotarih, Bangun Purba, and Galang Sub-district could be their evidence to bring up the formal petition, since the setting process did not submit the  procedures, such as it was not based on the community aspiration.

Meanwhile, Constitution Justice H.A.S. Natabaya asked whether there were  constitutional loss happened to The Petitioners as well as postulated in Article 28E Paragraph (3) and Article 28I Paragraph (2) 1945’s Constitution.”Were you forbidden to ally and to gather? Did they behave you different from other people?”, asked Natabaya.

Before closing the trial, The Head of The Constitution Justice Panel Board I Dewa Palguna stated that they would report it to The Constitution Justice Pleno Board, and The Pleno Board would consider whether the case will be continued to be overviewed, and whether the parties would be presented. Therefore, Palguna asked The Petitioner to always watch the development of the case by contacting the Registrar, also by browsing the Constitutional Court’s website.(Yogi Djatnika/ Kencana Suluh Hikmah)


Thursday, February 28, 2008 | 16:06 WIB 273
  • Budi Wibowo Halim (Pemohon) menyampaikan pokok-pokok perbaikan atas permohonan Perkara Nomor 117/PUU-XXI/2023. Foto Humas/Ifa

    Image 1
  • Majelis Sidang Panel yang di ketuai oleh Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih. Foto Humas/Fauzan

    Image 2