The Constitutional Court (MK) conducted an Initial examination trial for the case on Trial of Act No. 32 Year 2004 about the Regional Government (Act on Regional Government) against the 1945 Constitution on Wednesday (12/3) morning. The case registered on Tuesday (28/2) under the number 8/PUU-VI/2008 was filed by Drs. H.M. Said Saggaf, M.Si.

The Petitioner represented by his legal counsel, Jamaludin Rustam, S.H., M.H., considered the Act on Regional Government, especially Article 58 Paragraph (1) letter o containing the regulation of requirements for Regional Head/Vice Government Candidates has never ruled as a regional head or vice regional head for 2 (two0 consecutive periods within the same position, violated the constitutional rights of the Petitioner as regulated by Article 27 Paragraph (1), Article 28D Paragraph (3) and Article 28I Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

That regulation, said Jamaludin, had caused the Petitioner who, at the moment, holds the position as Regent of Mamasa, West Sulawesi, for the 2003-2008 period could not applu to be a candidate for the same position in the 2008-2013 period. That was caused by the Petitioner previously held the position of Regent of Bantaeng, South Sulawesi, in the 1993-1998 period was considered to hold the position (as Regent) for two consecutive term.

Besides that, the Petitioner also considered the regulation had caused a multi-interpretation and did not guarantee the law certainty for the Petitioner. The regulation according to the Petitioner had been interpreted differently by the Election Commission and the Ministry of Home Affairs so that the Petitioner was considered unqualified to be the Head of Region/Mamasa Regent for the second term. Actually according to the Petitioner, he held the position as the Regional Head not in the same area and not in a consecutive time.

“When the Petitioner intended to do the registration as a candidate, The Electoral Commission and the Ministry of Home Affair issued a letter stating that the Petitioner could not be a regent again and interpreted (the stipulation in Article 58 letter o of Act on Regional Government-ed.) as mentioned,” explained Jamaluddin.

Based on that, in the petitum the Petitioner demanded the Constitutional Court to grant his petition as a whole, to state the annulation of Article 58 Paragraph (1) letter o Act on Regional Government, and to state that the regulation did not have a binding legal power. Besides that, the Petitioner also demanded the Constitutional Court to state that the Petitioner still had the right to be a candidate for a Regional Head/Mamasa Regent. 

Responding to that, Head of Constitution Justice Panel who is also the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Jimly Asshiddiqie, emphasized that the Constitutional Court only had the authority to examine norms as regulated in legislation and not the implementation of the norms.

“So if you are sure to consider that the norm of the article is examined, not the implementation regulation, Government Regulation or Electoral Commission Regulation, then you consider the norm (limitation of back-to-back term) has limited so that actually someone should be able to apply three, four, or five times” explained Jimly.

Speaking in the same tone, Constitution Justice H. Achmad Roestandi, also demanded the Petitioner to make sure again about the interpretation of the regulation as arranged in the Government Regulation or Electoral Commission Regulation. “if what you mean is the rule in implementation, then the petition should be submitted to the Supreme Court,” said Roestandi.

Based on the advices from the Constitution Justices, the Petitioner was given an opportunity to improve the petition within 14 days. About the continuation of the petition, “It is all up to you. If the improvement is good, then the petition can be continued to the Pleno trial,” said Jimly before closing the trial.[] ARDLI