Mamasa Regent, H.M. Said Saggaf, still considered the limitation on Regional Head Period, twice in consecutive time, had violated the 1945 Constitution. In the trial for the petition improvement conducted in the Constitutional Court Building on Wednesday (26/3) morning, Mamasa Regent as the Petitioner of the case for the trial of Article 58 letter o of Act No.32/2004 on Regional Government (Act on Regional Government), considered the petition he filed in the last trial (12/3) had been properly made and did not need any improvement.

Through his legal counsel, Jamaluddin Rustam, S.H., M.H., the Petitioner considered the stipulation in Article 58 letter o of Act on Regional Government had limited his constitutional rights as regulated by Article 27 Paragraph (1), Article 28D Paragraph (3) and Article 28I Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner argued that the absence of the explanation of the stipulation in the Act on Regional Government had created multi-interpretation so that it did not guarantee a law certainty for the Petitioner. The stipulation according to the Petitioner, had been wrongly interpreted by the Central General Election Commission [Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU)] Pusat and Minister of Home Affairs (Mendagri) by issuing a letter stating that the Petitioner was considered not qualified as the Regent/Vice Regent Candidate for Mamasa for the second period. In fact according to the Petitioner, he held the position not in the same region and not in a consecutive period.

When Constitution Justice H. Harjono reemphasized about the existence of the letter from the General Election Commission and the Minister of Home Affairs used as the reason for the petition, the Petitioner did not deny that fact. “If there had been no letter from the General Election Committee and the Minister of Home Affairs that forbids the Petitioner to be a regent again, would the Petitioner still consider the stipulation (Article 58 letter o of Act on Regional Government) as a problem?,” questioned Harjono. Even though agreeing to the question, the Legal Counsel of the Petitioner held still to the intention to continue the petition.

For the Petitioner’s wish to continue his petition without any improvement, Panel Board chaired by Constitution Justice HAS Natabaya explained that the petition would be reported to the Justice Deliberation Meeting which would decide the continuation of the case. [] ardli/Yogi Djatnika