Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) filed a petition for judicial review of Act No. 32/2002 on Broadcasting to the 1945 Constitution on Tuesday (15/11). The case is numbered 78/PUU-IX/2011 convened for the first time with the preliminary agenda.

The trial judge panel led by Chief Harjono and was accompanied by Ahmad Sodiki and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi was attended by three representatives of the applicant. All three, namely Hendrayana of Aid Institute Press, Umar Idris from the Alliance of Independent Journalists, and Alvon Kurnia Palma from the Agency for the Press.

Hendrayana explain the main petition. He explained if the media use the public domain, then the regulation is applied to the media must be very tight.

"When a person or legal entity has been given a radio frequency spectrum for television and radio service, broadcast as public domain, then in fact he had been given the rights of broadcasting by the state. To use it within a certain time in a region, a particular broadcast, and may not be transferable to another person or legal entity, even if located in a holding company, "said Hendraya.

Hendrayana continued that there are several important reasons why media that use the public domain have differences with the media who do not use the public domain. First, because the media is using the public domain, which is a public good, so its use should be strictly regulated and is intended for the greatest welfare and prosperity of the people. 

In addition, radio and television broadcast media has expanded the nature and spread rapidly into family rooms. "When people read a newspaper for example, the control over what he read and where to read it will be very dependent on the reader. However, media that uses the public domain because it is spreading and expanding it, the charge content of the media can barely controlled by his audience, "explains Hendrayana. 

Alfon Kurnia Palma then continued his explanation. He said it is in principle invoke the constitutional interpretation of Article 18 and Article 34 paragraph (4) the Broadcasting Act declared contrary to Article 28D, 28F, and Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. 

"So, in principle at this time we ask the judges to give a constitutional interpretation on the implementation of Article 18 paragraph (1), Article 34 paragraph (4) the Broadcasting Act," said Alfon. 

Alfon continued, these articles can be declared unconstitutional if construed as a legal person whatever at any level (parent) or subsidiary, or an individual, should not have more than one permit organizing television broadcasting services are located in the province.

Whereas Article 34 Paragraph (4) the Broadcasting Act, requested construed as any form of domination and alienation of IPP and / or ownership of broadcasting organizations by means sold, transferred to another legal entity or other individual at any level, its parent or subsidiary, contrary to the Act Broadcasting. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)