The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK)) conducted a trial on Judicial Review of Act No. 10/2008 about General Election of the Member of the Parliament, Regional Council, and Provincial Parliament (General Election Act), Monday (05/26), 10.00 am, in Panel room of MK s Building. It was an Early Inspection session.

Case No. 15/PUU-VI/2008 was petitioned by Julius Daniel Elias Kaat, the Chairman of Branch Executive Committee of National Resurrection Party (Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB)) Alor, NTT, with his Attorneys, Hendra K. Hentas, S.H. and partner. In his petition, The Petitioners asked MK to state that Article 50 Paragraph (1) point g of General Election Act was considered to violate the 1945 Constitution.

Article 50

(1) Future candidate of the member of the Parliament,  Regional Council, Provincial Parliament, Regional Parliament in Province, and Regional Parliament in Regency, should fulfill the following terms:

g. Has never sentenced to imprisonment based on the court sentence which has a certain legal force because he does a crime which was threatened with imprisonment 5 years and more.

The Petitioner said, by enacting the provision, the constitutional right of the Petitioner was loss because he could not be elected as a Parliament member in a general election.  The Petitioner also stated that the provision was discriminative and considered to violate Article 28D Paragraph (1) and Article 28I Paragraph (2) 1945 Constitution.

Toward the petition, in its mandate, the Panel Chief Justice, Prof. Abdul Mukthie Fadjar, said that MK in its verdict of Case No. 14&17/PUU-V/2007 had ruled a case with the same theme, although the reviewed Act was different. “It should be a consideration for the Petititioner, whether he will continue the case or think twice about it, because there had been a verdict about criminal term,” Mukhtie said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice,  Maruarar Siahaan, added, if the Petitioner still wanted to continue the case, the Petitioner should have a capability to explain a new legal matter in its petition. “The Petitioner should have a strong argumentation that the verdict before is not related to his petition, “Maruarar explained.

Toward the advises from the Constitutional Justices, the Petitioner s Attorney, Hendra K. Hentas, S.H., acted for Daniel explained that although his client had been involved in a criminal case as stated in the Article, the client could do a good work.“The Petitioner keeps on his belief that sin is a sin. So, the Petitioner though that there should be no discrimination in a qualification term,” Hendra stated.

Before ended the session, Mukthie Fadjar gave the Petitioner a chance in 14 days to revise his petition, as stated in the Act. (Wiwik Budi Wasito/Kencana Suluh Hikmah)