---

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK)) conducted a trial session on Act No.10/ 2008 about General Election of the Member of the Parliament, Regional Council, and Provincial Parliament (General Election Act), Monday (06/09), in Panel room of MK s Building. The session was held to Examine the Revision of Petition.

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 been 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 or 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 on a session before, the Panel Chief Justice, Prof. Abdul Mukhtie 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,” Justice Palguna said as well as Mukhtie.

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 argument that the verdict before is not related to his petition, “Maruarar explained.

Toward the advises, on the second session, the Petitioner kept on his willing to continue the case. Beside that, there were also some revision on their legal grounds. The Petitioner s Attorney decided to erase their legal ground which stated that the Article was a retroactive term.

 Toward the decision, Mukthie Fadjar said that Panel Justice Board would continue the case to the Justice Plenary Meeting. “Let the Plenary Meeting decide whether we will continue it to case examination or to the verdict reading, because the substance of the case had been settled by MK,” Mukthie stated after approving the evidence (Wiwik Budi Wasito/Kencana Suluh Hikmah)

---