The Constitutional Court conducted another trial of the Area expansion of Banggai Island which was registered under No. 6/PUU-VI/2008, Tuesday (4/84), with the agenda of Hearing the Expert’s explanation from the Petitioners and Related Parties.

In the trial led by the Constitutional Court Vice Justice, H. M. Laica Marzuki, the Petitioners defended on their opinion that there had been a constitutional loss on them caused by the movement of the capital city from Banggai Island to Salakan as well as stated on Article 11 of Act No. 51 Year 1999 on the Forming of Morowali Regency, Buol Regency and Banggai Islands Regency.To support their opinion, the Petitioners brought two Experts.

In his explaination,Haliadi Sadi, told that historically, the center of Banggai culture and civilization placed on Banggai city. Other Expert, Muin Fahmal, also told that the process of creating the Act did not fit the procedures. Meanwhile, in his written explaination which was read by the Related Parties Lawyer, Prof. Safri Nugraha from Law Faculty Indonesian University explained that judicially, the capital city was the center of

Government, whether it was set by legal provision or by history. Jakarta was an example of capital city which its set based on history.

“Functionally, the capital city also uses as the development center for its neighborhood. And based on state regulation, the capital city is the legal domicile where is the center of administration and bureaucracy”, the Related Parties Lawyer read.

Safri said, the capital city movement often happened in the Regency, Province, as well as the State. “It may caused by some technical factors as well as following the trend. As long as the movement may causes good effects for the society, it should be done”, he added.

Before the trial closed, Constitutional Justice Natabaya felt the Experts explanation did not fit the trial substancy. “Article 11 of the Act considered violate Article 1 Paragraph (3) which told that  Indonesia is a constitutional state. So, what is the relation between this Article and the Petition? Is it like the Article (Article 11 of Act No. 51 Year 1999) violate Article 1 Paragraph 3 of 1945 Constitution  ?”, Natabaya asked.

On the question, Laica asked the Petitioner to give a written answer. Despite that,  Laica also asked all parties to create a written explanation on this case, because the the next trial would be the Verdict Reading trial. (Yogi Djatnika/ Kencana Suluh Hikmah)