Broadcasting Act a judicial applicant must prove the existence of losses due to the enactment of constitutional provisions that were tested. "DPR submitted to the Panel of Judges to consider and assess whether the applicant has legal standing or not." Thus the information conveyed by the Parliament before the Plenary Martin Hutabarat Constitutional Court Judge, Tuesday (10/01/2012). 

The trial case testing the constitutionality 78/PUU-IX/2011 of Article 18 Paragraph (1) and Article 34 Paragraph (4) of Act 32/2002 on Broadcasting scheduled to hear the statements of the Government, Parliament, and the Related Parties. Furthermore, Martin explained, information has become a staple of the community, and became an important commodity in the life of society, nation and state. The development of communications and information technology implied to the world of broadcasting. Broadcasting as a channel of information and forming public opinion has a very strategic role. "Setting the broadcasters should pay attention to all aspects of life of the nation," explained Martin. 

Parliament opinion, the arguments of the Petitioner is not appropriate. The articles that tested the Petitioner do not conflict with the 1945 Constitution. Party Government, represented by Ministry of Communication and Information (Kemenkominfo) assess damages argued by the applicant because of dissatisfaction over the Petitioners of the content of television broadcasts. It is said the Government, has facilitated in article 52 of the Broadcasting Act which provides that the public can participate in the implementation of national broadcasters in the form of filing objections to the broadcast program, the content, which can be submitted by the IEC. In addition, according to the Government, the arguments of the Petitioners presented without loss of data support the measurable and accountable. "So the argument of the Petitioners’ losses could have been born due to the subjectivity of the Petitioners own self," said Sukri Batubara from Kemenkominfo. 

Regarding the organization of broadcasting services, Sukri said, Praise be to Allah implementation of the Broadcasting Act regulate broadcasting services performed by actors who are limited broadcasting range of the broadcast. For national broadcasters conducted by TVRI and RRI, while local and regional broadcasting carried out by private broadcasters and community subscribe. As for the content of the broadcast, he added, the Broadcasting Act has mandated the establishment of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI). The existence of IBC is a form of public participation is authorized to oversee the broadcast content. 

Petitioners’ argument regarding the interpretation of the relevant phrase "other parties" in Article 34 paragraph (4) the Broadcasting Act, according to the Government, no longer needed the interpretation of those terms. "Because understanding of the phrase ‘other’ is certainly covers any party whatsoever, including individuals or legal entities," said Sukri denied Petitioners’ argument. 

Yusril Ihza Mahendra representing the Related Parties, MNC Group also questioned the legal status of the Petitioner pursuant to Law 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court. "There is uncertainty that the applicant party in this case referred to in Article 51 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court," said Yusril. 

For information, test the constitutionality of the Broadcasting Act matter was filed by Rev. Dhyatmika of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Jakarta, Hendrayana of the Press Legal Aid Institute (LBH Pers), Ahmad Faisol of Media Link, Masduki of Media Monitoring Regulations and regulators (PR2Media), and Christiana Chelsia Chan of the Foundation for Twenty-Eight (Y28). 

Article 18 Paragraph (1) of the Broadcasting Act states, "Concentration of ownership and control of private broadcasting institutions by one person or legal entity, either in one area of broadcasting and broadcasting in some areas, is limited". 

Then Article 34 paragraph (4) The Broadcasting Act states, "Operating license for broadcasting prohibited transferable to another party". Both materials are chapters in the Broadcasting Act by the Petitioners are contrary to Article 28D, 28F, and Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. 

According to the Petitioners, a body of law both at the parent or subsidiary company, or individual should not have more than one permit organizing the broadcasting services, television broadcasting located in the province. The Petitioner argues, a person or a legal entity easily buy at the same time broadcasters broadcasting license. Whereas under the Broadcasting Act, broadcasting operating license should be returned to the state as a legal entity capable of holding no longer broadcasting, or the licensing period runs out. Countries automatically revoke the permit. Frequency of return to the state aims to prevent any monopoly in the broadcasting world. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)