House of Representatives: the Court Has No Authority for Ultra Petita

Under Article 24 C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court (MK) only has the constitutional authority to test laws against the Constitution and do not have the authority to establish new norms as norms that cut against the Constitution. 

It is delivered by the Member of Parliament Ahmad Dimyati Natakusumah from PPP faction in the trial against the testing of Law Number 8 Year 2011 on Amendment against the Law Number 24 Year 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court. The trial heard the reply from the Government and Parliament are held by the Constitutional Court on Friday (15 / 9), at the Plenary Court Room. Present in court listening to the statements of the Government and Parliament, case No. 49/PUU-IX/2011, Saldi Isra and Zainul Daulay. Meanwhile, case No. 48/PUU-IX/2011, namely Fauzan, only represented by a lawyer, M.Zainal Arifin. 

"The establishment of legislation legislative function constitutionally, is the authority of Parliament and the Government, if the Constitutional Court in its decision to make a new norm, then the Court has exceeded the authority granted by the Constitution," said Dimyati in front of judges, chaired by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh . Mahfud MD. 

Meanwhile, responding to the Petitioner No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 on Elections Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Court in a one-time election, Dimyati explained it was done for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. Not only that, according to Dimyati, the selection was assessed in a single meeting will not affect the independence and credibility of the judges of the constitution."Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Court duties are not affected by the percentage level support at the election of judges. Likewise, the constitutional judges should not be influenced by the chairman or vice chairman of the constitutional decisions of judges can give a different opinion or a dissenting opinion and or make a different reason. It is a fact that the percentage of support at the election of judges chairman and vice chairman are not correlated and do not affect the implementation of the constitutional duties of the judge, "he explained. 

Then, about 47 years age limit for judges constitution as provided for in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter d and the letter h Act 8 / 2011, Dimyati refers to this as a policy maker law (legal policy). According to Dimyati, the minimum age limit was associated with a person’s level of maturity to be able to say as a statesman. "It is recognized that there are no definitive numbers of age to determine the age of maturity of the statesman. Age 47 is the choice of legislators, legal policy on the premise that at the age of 47 was considered a person already has a maturity as a statesman, "he said. 

However, Professor of Constitutional Law as a petition expressing Saldi Isra 47-year age limit set by Parliament as legislators do not have strong and precise arguments. "So, we really do not see the basis of arguments that can then be reformed charging justices. So, it figures that I think this jigsaw puzzle mangos teen fruit course. Options 47, lest there are indeed people who are being targeted by the Parliament and the Government did not go to the Constitutional Court for instance, we do not know it. But we think this choice says base 47 digits that a statesman should be described, "he said. 

Meanwhile, the Government, represented by Director General of Legislation Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Wahiduddin Adam considers all the arguments that the arguments Petitioner are not an issue of constitutionality of norms. "So, according to the Government, has nothing to do with the issue of constitutionality with the stipulation that petitioned for review by the Petitioners," he said. 

Meanwhile, responding to the argument that the Petitioner No. disclosed.48/PUU-IX/2011, Parliament, represented by Martin Hutabarat expressed applicant is not the authority of the Constitutional Court. "Petitioner, explains Martin, wants the phrase ‘own, keep, and master’ in Article 112 paragraph (1) Narcotics Act meant ‘possess, store, mastered in order to be circulated or used someone else’. This is according to the House, not legislation but rather to test a proposed change in the norm of Article 112 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Act. Thus, it is, not including the authority of the Constitutional Court, but the authority of the Parliament and Government, "he continued. 

In the main petition, the Petitioner No. 48/PUU-PUU-IX/2011 invoke judicial review of Article 45A and Article 57 paragraph (2) letter a and c, and Article 112 paragraph (10 Article 127 paragraph (1) letter a of Law no. 35 Year 2009 on Narcotics. While the Petitioner No. . 49/PUU-IX/2011 filed a number of articles in Law No.8/2011 material to be tested against the 1945 Constitution, namely Article 4 paragraph (4) letter f, g, h; Article 10, Article 15, Article 15 paragraph ( 2) letter d; Article 26, Article 27A Paragraph (20 letter c, d, and e; Article 50A, Article 57ayat (2) letter a, Article 59 paragraph (2); and Article 87. The articles a quo considered against with Article 24 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2); Article 28 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) and Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the Act of 1945. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 | 09:23 WIB 163