The Constitutional Court heard the information from the Governor and Provincial Parliament of North Sumatra, Regent and Parliament of Deli Serdang, Regent and Parliament of Serdang Bedagai for the trial of the case No. 4/PUU-VI/2008 about the trial of Act No. 36 Year 2003 on the Forming of Samosir Regency and Serdang Bedagai Regency in North Sumatra Province on Thursday (13/3).

At that third trial, the Petitioners considered the existence of the legislation used as the basis for the extention Deli Serdang Regency, had caused some constitutional loses to the Petitioners as guaranteed by Article 24E paragraph (3) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners also considered that the forming of the Act was not based on people’s aspiration. The people, according to the Petitioners-especially in Kotarih District, Galang District and Bangun Purba District-felt that they were not informed about the expansion idea and one-sidedly put under Serdang Bedagai Regent.

Yet the opinion of the Petitioners was rebuted by Head of Regional Autonomy Bureau North Sumatra Provincial Government, Drs. Bukit Tambunan, by saying that the expansion of the area was actually based on people’s initiative through many meeting.

“Historically, this is people’s wish but we can not make sure whether one of the Petitioners was a member of Area Expansion Board or not. But what we can say is that the idea was from the people, not from the Government.” stated Tambunan.

The same statement was also given by Drs. Hasbul Hadi, S.H., Spn..  According to Hadi, the Head of North Sumatra Parliament ad interim. The decision of the expansion which was taken in the assembly meeting of the Parliament was based on the letter of the North Sumatra Governor with No. 4733/2002 dated July 16, 2002 followed up by the research process with the result stating that the people supported the idea of area expansion.

Meanwhile, Head of Regional Inspector Body (Bawasda) of Deli Serdang, Poltak Tobing, said that at the beginning Deli Serdang Regency was going to be extended into 3 Regencies, Deli Serdang, Serdang Bedagai and Deli. However, the voting result in the Parliament decided to extend the area into 2 Regencies.

The Regent of Serdang Bedagai, Ir. H.T. Erry Nuradi, B.A., dalam keterangannya juga membantah apa yang dikatakan para Pemohon yang menyatakan pemerintah tidak memperhatikan rakyat. Erry mengatakan bahwa pemerintah kabupaten telah membangun sarana seperti kantor kecamatan di Kecamatan Silinda yang memudahkan masyarakat untuk mengurus kepentingannya. Permasalahan ini dikatakannya muncul karena adanya dualisme pemerintahan.

“Actually sccording to the law infact supported by regulation of Minister of Home Affairs about area borders that it is clearly included in Serdang Bedagai Area. We have inaugurated chief of the villages but Deli Serdang Regency had also installed the chief of the villages,” said Erry.

According to M. Yusuf Basrun, Head of Regional Parliament of Serdang Bedagai Regency, who is also the head of Special Committee for the Expansion of Deli Serdang Area, the expansion had been according to the people’s aspiration. In the development proses, the growing aspiration demanded to have three Regencies. Nevertheless throught fractional meetings in the Parliament of Serdang Bedagai Regency, it was decided that temporarily Deli Serdang Regency divided into two regencies considering the ability of the main regency to support the extended regency also by considering the impact of the expansion. “Don’t let the expansion disturb the main government service to the people in every aspect.” explained Yusuf Basrun.

By those consideration, the Regional Parliament decided to extend the area into two regencies. Yet, the consequence of the expansion made several villages to jon the area of Serdang Bedagai. Yusuf also said that after the expansion, the follow-up related to the people’s aspiration was that the Regional Parliament of Deli Serdang Regency formed a socialization team to the people including in the troubled districts. Therefore the petitioners reason by saying that they did not know about the expansion problem could not be accepted.

Before closing the trial filled with hot debates, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Jimly Asshiddiqie, said that the Justice Board had heard completely and had sufficient information. The Constitutional Justice Board also felt that they did bot require to bring President and the House of Representatives as lawmakers before the court as commonly did. As the consequence, the Board considered that this case did not require another trial before the Verdict was read out.   

Case Withdrawal
meanwhile before that, the Constitutional Court read out the stipulation of case withdrawal for the trial of Article 77 letter a and Article 83 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Act No. 8 Year 1981 about Penal Code Law (KUHAP). (Yogi Djatnika)