The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on judicial review of Act No. 8 of 2011 On Amendment of Act no. 24 of 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court against the Constitution of 1945 in case No. 69/PUU-IX/2011, Tuesday (8 / 11), in Room Panel Session Court. Panel Session with the agenda Repair petition namely Salim Alkatiri, led by Anwar Usman, accompanied by Achmad Sodiki and Maria Farida Indrati, respectively as members. 

At the beginning of the trial, once opened and declared open to the public, Usman Anwar as leader of the hearing said that the applicant is welcome to enter the courtroom. "Let us call first," pleaded the Panel Chairman to the Officers. 

After seeing the judges of the Constitutional Assembly’s petition is present in Penel, then the second session held by the Court, declared closed. "Because Petitioner was unable to attend, then we declare the trial is completed and closed," said the head of the Panel Session. 

Before the hearing improvement in the title in the Constitutional Court, in a preliminary hearing Petitioner argues that the Act no. 8/2011 on Amendment of Act no. 24 of 2003 on Article 10 Paragraph (1) reads, "The verdict of the Constitutional Court is final, the decision of the Constitutional Court directly and binding since spoken and there is no remedy which can be taken. The nature of the final decision of the Constitutional Court in this Act also includes binding legal force (final and binding). " 

In the article, according to Petitioner, contrary to Article 28, Article 281 Paragraph (2) and Article 27 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Due, Petitioner judge, Constitutional Court and Supreme Court (MA) is the same. However, the Supreme Court in the trial verdict is not yet final, of which the trial court level is high, the level of court in MA. "There’s even reconsideration on the Supreme Court. But why did the Court in its decision there is no review back? Inikan discriminatory, "said Salim Alkatiri’s. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)