Constitutional Justice Harjono, during the decision reading for the review of act on regional government
Jakarta, MKOnline - The Constitutional Court (The Court) held a session for decision reading of the review of Act No. 12/2008 on the Second Amendment to Act No. 32 of 2004 about Regional Government (Act on Regional Government), Thursday (3/3) afternoon. In this decision reading session for Article 58 letter O of the Act, The Court decided that the Petitioners’ petitions partially could not be accepted and the rests and the others were rejected.
The Petitioners for this review of Act on Regional Government were Bambang Suhariyanto and Marwan Kamdan. While their Legal Counsels were m. Machfudz and M. Irfan Choirie. The Petitioners in the previous sessions have announced that they considered Article 54 letter O had opened an opportunity for someone who had governed as a regional head for two periods could still reign for the next periods, or vice versa. The Article itself stated “Have never held as regional head or vice head for 2 (two) periods in the same position.
With the incumbent who had reigned as a regional head for two periods then put the person in vice head candidacy or the way around was considered by the Petitioners to be able to narrow the Petitioners’ potential to be a regional head or vice. That was because the incumbent was considered to have a networking he had build during his tenure.
Thus, the Petitioner demanded the Article 58 letter O of Act on Regional Government to be changed in the context to be “A candidate for Regional Head or Vice is a citizen of Republic of Indonesia who meets the requirements” and letter O to be “in order to be a regional head or vice, has never held as a regional head for two tenures.
In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim, it was said that The Court in reality had ever received an application concerning the same article. The review was decided by The Court in Decision No. 8/PUU-VI/2008 dated May 6, 2008, Decision No. 29/PUU-VIII/2010 dated September 3, 2010 and Decision No. 33/PUU-VIII
In the Decision No. 8/PUU-VI/2008 dated May 6, 2008, The Court announced that the article was not in contrary to the 1945 Constitution thus the petitions were rejected,” announced Alim. Besides that, the articles used as the touch stones, Article 28D paragraph (1), paragraph (3) and Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
In the conclusion read by Mahfud, it was stated that The Court concluded the Petitioners’ arguments were partially considered as ne bis in idem, and the rest and the others did not have a legal ground. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/YDJ)
Monday, March 07, 2011 | 15:12 WIB 232