---

In building a democratic broadcasting system, not only guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and freedom of the press, but must also ensure that there is diversity of ownership and content (diversity of ownership and of content). This was stated by Chairman of the Board of Directors of United Company Press (SPS) Center Amir Effendi Siregar in the trial continued testing of Law Number 32 Year 2002 on Broadcasting on Wednesday (15/2), at the Plenary Court Room. Cases registered with the Court Clerk No. 78/PUU-IX/2011 is filed by the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), the Legal Aid Press (LBH Pers), Media Link, Media Monitoring Regulations and regulators (PR2Media), and the Foundation for Twenty-Eight .

 

"Broadcasting Act directs and build a national broadcasting system by relying on two basic pillars, namely Networking Television Station and Television Station," Amir said in a session led by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD.

 

At present, officially, obviously Amir, according to the law, there should not be called as a national television station. According to Amir, when a national television to have a wide reaches, it must be a network television station. The formation of networked television station has not occurred either in Indonesia, a mere formality because there is a reluctance of the owners of television stations to be networked television station correctly. "It means they do not involve local investors and local content adequately because it is considered economically inefficient," he said.

 

In conclusion, Amir describes the life and mass communication systems, particularly electronic media in Indonesia have taken place and the transfer of the dominance of state government into the dominance of a handful of investors and owners of television stations that have not worked together and did not empower local communities. "The broadcast industry is now running on television in particular neo-liberal ideology which gives a very broad market freedom, but the industry is in fact also use public property should be owned by local communities. This might happen, because the capital strength of a handful of people doing a variety of ways, among others through the opportunities and erroneous interpretations of the statute of broadcasting as opposed to the 1945 Constitution, "he explained.

 

In the trial of Experts and Witnesses heard the testimony of both Petitioner and the Government, was present as a Related Party, the Media and the Concerned Citizens Association of Community Television to provide testimony in this trial. Lukas Ispandiano explained, the national private television is limited to the elite and limited only to Jakarta. While the portions appear to the region, continued Luke, is small. "The portion to be a large area when the approaching Election was only dominated the news surrounding the palace, a circular building, Senayan. In the end create a society do not get the information relating to his life, especially in the area. For it is expected, the Court supports the diversity of ownership, "said Luke as the Chairman of the Concerned Citizens Media.

 

While the Government experts, Bambang Subyantoro claim petition must be rejected by the Constitutional Assembly. According to Bambang, the petition was counterproductive to the efforts of the Government to develop a national broadcasting industry. "The Government is currently processing the analog television licenses. Recorded 800 applicant for analog television licenses, and so far, the Government has approved a total of 400 requests. This show does not allow for national broadcasting monopoly in the industry," said Bambang.

 

In the main petition, the Petitioner, represented by legal counsel Hendrayana, ask for judicial review of Article 18 paragraph (1) and Article 34 paragraph (4) of Law No.32/2002 on Broadcasting against Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28F, and Article 33 paragraph (3 ) of the 1945 Constitution. According to Petitioners, these passages are multiple interpretations, giving rise to injustice and legal uncertainty. In addition, the Petitioners argue that the articles eliminating the principles, objectives, functions, and the principle of broadcasting that is contrary to Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)

---