---

The Constitutional Court conducted a trial on Act No.10/2008 about the election for Parliament (DPR), City Council (DPD), and fot the Provincial Parliament (DPRD) (General Election), Tuesday (04/15), in the Plenary Room, Constitutional Court Building. The trial had the agenda of Early Initial.
Case No. 10/PUU-VI/2008 petitioned by the City Council, its member, provincial society, Secretariat National of Customary Law Community, Centre for Electoral Reform (CETRO), Indonesian Parliamentary Center (IPC), and the Citizens Forum for Indonesian Parliament Care (Forum Masyarakat Peduli Parlemen Indonesia (Formappi)). The trial also presented by Vice Chairman of the City Council Dr. La Ode Ida, Executive Director of CETRO Hadar N. Gumay, and Expert Committee of Secretariat National of Customary Law Community Prof. Dr. Syafrudin Bahar.
In the petition, the Petitioners explained that the extermination on the domicile term, and non-political party term in Article 12 and Article 67 of the Act was an effort to lose a constitutional norm in the Act.  The abolishing of the terms considered to cause the Act to be criticized because it had negated the presence of the constitutional norm which stated that the candidates of the City Council member came from related province (Article 22C Paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution) and individual candidates (Article 22E Paragraph (4)1945 Constitution).
So that, in the petition read by the legal counsel, Todung Mulya Lubis, the Petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to stated that Article 12 and Article 67 of the General Election Act violated Article 22C Paragraph (1) and Article 22E Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, and stated that the Articles did not have a legal binding power with the entire results of it.
On his statement, Todung also considered that it was dilemmatic because the Petitioners filed a trial on a norm which explicitly was not written in the Act. “There is a kind of norm suffering in Article 12 and Article 67.  There is a constitutional right which is violated because it violate the riginal intent of the creator of the Constitution”, Todung mentioned.
After the short explanation from the Petitioners, Constitutional Justice Panel Board gave some advise to them. Head of the Panel Board, Abdul Mukthie Fadjar, asked the Petitioners to revise their petition, especially on legal standing. Mukthie explained, one of the things, that the City Council as an institution would have some different reasons on the constitutional loss with DPD members as individuals.
Mukthie asked the Petitioners to give the clearer explanation on what constitutional loss caused by the presence of Article 12 and Article 67 of the Act. “Of course,  argumentation on the constitutional loss of each Petitioner is different. Even more, is it true that the Petitioners asked all terms stated on Article 12 and Article 67 of the Act to be annulled?” Mukhtie asked the Petitioners to make it clear.
Meanwhile, a Constitutional justice, I Dewa Gede Palguna, questioned whether there had been a plenary meeting on the City Council to file a judicial review to the Constitutional Court. “It is important because Chairman of the City Council is not a Head. The City Council Chairman only acts as a speaker. If there is no statement as a result of a plenary meeting, someday may come a member who denies the filing of the judicial review by the name of the City Council,” Palguna descibed.
Beside it, Palguna also mentioned that the petition was more related to individual liberty problem, in civil rights and political rights context which must be related to different constitutional rights between  state organs and individuals. “ So that, the Petitioners should explain the loss of their civil right and political  rights related to the legalization of the Act,” Palguna added.
Similar with the explanation of two Constitutional Justices before, Maruarar Siahaan asked the Petitioner to stress their law argument to give some alternative solutions to the Constitutional Court if their petition accepted. “Can you stress your law argument to make sure us about the prohibition which forbid the political party member and a provincial representative to be the City Council member?”, Maruarar asked to make clear his advise.
After the justice give the advises, answering Palgunas question, La Ode Ida mentioned that there had been a plenary meeting in the City Council which resulted some agreement, one of those, is to make La Ode Ida as their speaker and their representative in the filing of the judicial review on the General Act. “We will send the agreement after this,” La Ode answered.
Continuing La Ode Ida, the Counsel of the Petitioners, Bambang Widjojanto, said that if the member of the political party deserved to be the City Council member, it was potential to make abuse of power. “Moreover, the original intent stressed it (the prohibition),” Bambang stated.
Before the trial end, Mukthie Fadjar limited the Petitioners to revise the petitition, maximum in 14 days. (Wiwik Budi Wasito/Kencana Suluh Hikmah)

---