Habel Rumdiak, a sole Petitioner in the judicial review of Article 205 of Act on Election, Thursday (5/11), in the Court’s Panel Room. (Doc. CCRI/Ardli Nuryadi)

Jakarta - MKOnline, The Constitutional Court (the Court) held a judicial review session on Act Number 10 of 2008 about General Election for Member of House of Representatives, City Council, Regional House of Representatives (Act on Election), Thursday (5/11), at the Court’s Panel Room. The case registered with Number 130/PUU-VII/2008 was filed by Habel Rumdiak.

In the session scheduled for initial examination, it was revealed that the Petitioner did not improve his file according to the advices given previously by the Panel of Justices. "Is the Petitioner really serious with this request for a judicial review? Because many of the advices given by the Justices were not put in the improved Petition. Actually the Justices are trying to support the Petitioner’s request in the Justice Deliberation Meeting level," explained Constitutional Justice Harjono.

Harjono felt pitiful for the Petitioner’s unserious attitude. According Harjono, the Petitioner did not explain his argument that considered 10 articles; Article 205 paragraph (1), Article 205 paragraph (2), Article 205 paragraph (3), Article 205 paragraph (4), Article 205 paragraph (5), Article 205 paragraph (6), Article 205 paragraph (7), Article 211 paragraph (1), Article 211 paragraph (2), and Article 211 paragraph (3), of the Act on Election as discriminative and violated the Petitioner’s constitutional right. "The Petitioner mentioned two different systems of election for members of House of Representatives and for Regional House of Representatives. When mentioning the differences of the two systems, the Petitioner did not provide necessary arguments on the comparison of the two systems which lead to a discriminative state," explained Harjono.

Meanwhile, Head of Panel Board of Justices, Achmad Sodiki, pointed out that the Petitioner should have filed his request on the last 2009 Election. “Should your request be granted, it would not have a practical and immediate impact because members of the Regional House of Representatives for term 2009 – 2014 have been inaugurated. It would have been different if the Petitioner had filed his case before the Election took place," Sodiki pointed out.

Responding to the Justices’ statements, the Petitioner expressed his apology for his ignorance. "I apology for being ignorant, but I am serious with my pleading," expressed the Petitioner. (Lulu A./YDJ tr.)