The applicant for judicial review of Act No. 24 of 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court on Friday (5 / 8), in the Meeting Room of the Constitutional Court

In short deadlines in the dispute which dispute the election results only 14 days violating the constitutional rights of the seven applicants. This was revealed in court judicial review of Act No. 24 of 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court on Friday (5 / 8), in Meeting Room Panel of the Constitutional Court (MK). A case registered with the Registrar of the Constitutional Court was petitioned by a number 46/PUU-IX/2011 and the applicants are Afloriano Melesen, Iskandar dabi-Dabi, Junaidi Dean, M. Djan Mangoda, Saiman Nuang, Arsad Sardan, and Demianur Ice.

Through his legal counsel Andi M. Asrun, Petitioner argues that Article 10 paragraph (1) letter d of the Constitutional Court Law is contradictory to Article 28D Paragraph (1) and Article 28I Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Asrun said the General Election dispute in the examination process is quite short time interval, so that raises some problems. "These issues among others alleged false testimony and evidence also of doubtful validity, so we considered that the applicant considers that the Constitutional Court is necessary to provide interpretation of the provisions of Article 10 paragraph (1) letter d of the Constitutional Court Law. We expect the Court to give verdict on the interpretation that the first and final level is not applicable when there is manipulation or say error in the data as well as the emergence of false testimony, "said Asrun before the Panel, chaired by Judge Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi.

In addition, Asrun assess if Article 10 paragraph (1) letter d Act remains Court interpreted in accordance with the explanation, the only contrary to the Constitution of 1945. "For that, we appealed to the Court decided and declared to be interpreted as the Constitutional Court on the Election, General Election results unless a later date found to the use of false evidence in the case investigation," he said.

Responding to the petition, the judges’ panel suggests improvements to the Applicant. Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki questioned about the false evidence that is still conjectural. Sodiki reveal the Court can not wait until the allegations are false evidence heard in public court proceedings in a case examining the results of election disputes. "Examination of us was only 14 days. Here does not please you have to cancel the 14 day time limit. How about construction you think that? "explained Sodiki.

Constitutional Court Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi asked legal status of Petitioner and Petitioner's argument in the main petition." The reason is related to the subject of this petition are mostly facts, but it should be sharpened it is contrary to the a quo article with the 1945 so that he will be broken on parole or interpreted as anything, it went from there. Well, here are just facts, facts that are not linked to each other, "said Fadlil. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yazid.tr)