Independent Comission for Election (KIP) in Southeast Aceh RegencyKomisi Independen Pemilihan Tingkat Kabupaten Aceh Tenggara and the House of Representatives (DPRK) in Southeast Aceh who filed the case registered with No. 26/SKLN-V/2007 did not have a legal standing.
This was stated by the Constitutional Court in the Verdict Reading Trial for the Dispute over State Bodies the Authorities of which are provided by the 1945 Constitution between the KIP of Southeast Aceh (Petitioner I) with DPRD/DPRK of Southeast Aceh (Petitioner II) and KIP NAD [Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam] (Petitionee I), the Governor of NAD (Petitioner II), altoghether with the President of The Republic of Indonesia c.q. Minister of Home Affairs (Petitionee III).
The case is related to the opinion that the constitutional authorities of the Petitioner I was taken over by Petitionee I by confirming the ballot result of the Election for Head / Vice Head of Southeast Aceh Regency in 2006 done on December, 11th 2006. Petitioner I considered this to be violating Article 56 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Act No. 11 Year 2006 on Aceh Government (Act of Aceh Government) which stated that KIP NAD to hold the Election for Governor / Vice and KIP in Regency/City (Petitioner I) to hold Election for Governor/Vice, Regent/Vice, also Mayor /Vice.
Petitionee II was also considered to abandon the constitutional authorities of Petitioner II by making an initiative for the legalization of the winning couple for Regent / Vice Regent of Southeast Aceh to Petitionee III. Then, Petitionee III issued a Decree of Minister of Home Affairs about the Dismissal of Regent Rulers and the legalization of Inaugurating Regent / Vice for Southeast Aceh.
The action was a follow-up of the initiative of Petitionee II which was considered to neglect the constitutional authorities of Petitioner II because of the existence of Article 24 paragraph (1) letter d Act on Aceh Government stating that DPRK had the task and authority to make an initiative of appointing and dismissing Regent/Vice and Mayor/Vice to the Minister of Home Affairs through the Governor.
In the legal opinion for the verdict, the Constitutional Court stated that the KIP, whether KIP in Southeast Aceh or KIP in NAD Province, based on the Act of Aceh Government junctis Qanun No. 2 Year 2004 as ammended by Qanun No. 3 Year 2005 and Qanun No. 7 Year 2006 Ã¢â¬Åwas given authority by the law to hold the General Election for President and Vice, Members of House of Representatives, Member of Regional Council, Members of DPRA/DPRK, election of Governor/Vice, Regent/Vice and Mayor/ViceÃ¢â¬Â. Therefore it could be determined that both Petitioner I and Petitioner II were not State Bodies whose authorities were provided by the 1945 Constitution.
Besides that, both Petitioner II and Petitionee II, based themselves on the authorities provided by Act No. 32 Year 2004 on Regional Government and Act No. 11 Year 2006 and therefore the authorities of the dispute was not the authority arranged and provided by the 1945 Constitution to each party.
In other word, Ã¢â¬Åboth from the objectum litis and the subjectum litis requirements, the petition did not go under the area of the authority of the Constitutional Court to examine, put on trial and to decide,Ã¢â¬Â stated the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Jimly Asshiddiqie, in the trial that was open to public. Hence, the Petitioners did not have a legal standing and the petition did not meet the requirements therefore the petition should be decided as unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard).
Ã¢â¬Å... by considering the information revealed in the trial and apart from whether or not the requirements of the subjectum litis and the objectum litis in the petition a quo; nevertheless, considering the many dispute cases related to the Regional Election in many areas potentially to be misunderstood as dispute over state bodies authorities filed to the Court, then The Court see the importance of wisdom and action from the related parties to quickly and responsive to follow up every report on the existence of the Regional Election carry-out, both administratively and criminally, so that the people do not lose faith on the democratic process and the government that will cause disturbance in the development agenda for the sake of the people.Ã¢â¬Â
Source: The Verdict of the Constitutional Court No. 26/SKLN-V/2007
The legal counsel of the Petitioners, O.C. Kaligis, when asked for his opinion after the court, stated, there was no winning or loosing after the verdict was announced related to the problem of the Petitioners. Ã¢â¬ÅBecause the petition was considered unaccepted,Ã¢â¬Å he revealed. Furthermore according to Kaligis, Their side would undergo other efforts to get attain justice. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono/Yogi Djatnika)
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 13:35 WIB 270