The desire of some people, especially academics, to review the Act on the Constitutional Court recently just happened. In fact, judicial review of Act No. 8/2011 concerning Amendment to Act No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court has been registered to the Constitutional Court on Monday (29 / 7) afternoon.

On that occasion, the registration request made by some of the Petitioners, namely Saldi Isra, Yuliandri, and Feri Amsari. They came along with several attorneys, including Febri Diansyah and Donald Fariz. As for the other Principal Applicant is Arief Hidayat, Zainul Daulay, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, and M. Ali Safa’at.

According to Saldi, this review is no need to delay.” If you wait too long, the negative implications will already occur,” he said.” This is an intense form of protest our attention to the Constitutional Court.”

Judicial review was conducted because the new Constitutional Court Act has the potential to ‘weaken’ performance as well as ‘threatening’ the independence of the Court in upholding law and justice. Changes in the Constitutional Court Act are considered close opportunities substantive justice.” There is a substance that potentially damaging result of revision of the Constitutional Court,” he said.

Some of the problems inherent in the Act, which were related to the existence of elements of the House of Representatives in the composition of the Court of Honor Council and the ‘ban’ to make a decision of ultra petita. According to Saldi, that provision is the wrong perspective. ”If it is prohibited (to make a decision of ultra petita), then Judge of the Constitutional Court as a funnel to make laws,” he said. Ultra petita is a court decision (in this case the Court) that decided in excess of what is required or requested by the applicant.

Implications of the decision banning ultra petita would deprive the Court in the realization of substantive justice as has been done by the Court during this time. Therefore, in his petition, it intends to test the Constitutional Court Law, particularly Article 4 Paragraph (4f) (4g), and (4h); Article 15 Paragraph (2) d; Article 27A Paragraph (2) c, d, and e; Article 50A, Article 57 Paragraph (1), (2), and (2a) and Article 59 Paragraph (2).

One of the reviewed article, namely Article 57 Paragraph (2a) of the Constitutional Court Law reads, “Decisions of the Constitutional Court does not contain: a. verdict other than those referred to in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) b. orders to the legislators, and c. formulation of the norm instead of the norm of law declared contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945.”(Dodi/mh/Yazid.tr)

Friday, July 29, 2011 | 18:09 WIB 346