The trial continued against the review of Act No. 8/2011 regarding Amendment of Act No. 24/2003 regarding the Constitutional Court again held the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (5 / 10) at the Court Panel Meeting Room. The trial case registered with the Registrar of the Constitutional Court Number 53/PUU-IX/2011 proposed by Pong Hardjatmo. 

In the trial the improvement of such request, Gatot Goei as Petitioner’s attorney described some improvements made, including the addition of chapters to be tested, namely Article 48 paragraph (1), subsection (2), paragraph (3), and subsection (6) Law Political Parties Act. "We also do change, of course, related to the systematic suggested by the judges. Where is associated with the legal position, we’ve set aside. Hold, then also associated with the reasons the request we also have separate, and also we have to into the Section, "he said. 

Goei related to the section explaining the reasons for the petition, presented related to corruption in political parties and political parties who are not pro-people conflict with the purpose of the state. The second, advanced Goei, the power of political parties in the Constitution of 1945 is very large and determine the future of national life. Then, Goei also explained that the dissolution needed to pressure political parties by the people through the Constitutional Court is due process of law. "The fourth, a political party cannot be dissolved by the people, contrary to the principle of popular sovereignty. The fifth, the provisions of Article 48 paragraph (1), (2), (3), and (6) Political Party Law are contradictory to Article 24 paragraph (1), and Article 24c what we mean. Paragraph 24C (1) and paragraph 28D (1), and Article 68 paragraph (1) of the Act the Court contrary to Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28H Paragraph (3), Article 28C Paragraph ( 1), subsection (2), and Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the Act of 1945, "he explained. 

Constitutional Court judges panel, chaired by Hamdan Zoelva accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and Harjono have passed nine evidences of Petitioner. In the main petition, the Petitioner argued Article 68 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court had violated the constitutional rights of the applicant. Article 68 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court on Dissolution of Political Parties states that "(1) Applicant is a Government". (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)