Former State Secretary Bambang Kesowo recognize the inconsistency article on Act 32/2002 on Broadcasting to be held on Thursday (23/2), at the Plenary Court Room. Bambang presented in the trial that led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK), Moh. Mahfud MD as a witness. 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.

"There is a perceived lack of consistent on some of the provisions in this legislation (the Broadcasting Act) for example, Article 5 letter g with Article 41 of the Act," Bambang said in a session led by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD.

Bambang explained that there were strict rules contained in Article 5 letter g of the Broadcasting Act regarding restrictions on broadcasting monopoly, but in Article 41 of the Broadcasting Act would loosen the monopoly provision. Article 5 letter g of the Broadcasting Act states "Broadcasting directed to: (g) to prevent monopoly ownership and support fair competition in broadcasting". Article 41 of the Broadcasting Act states "Between broadcasters can work together to broadcast throughout the broadcast is not the monopoly of information and leads to the formation of opinion monopoly".

Responding to questions about the law that could apply without approved by the President for 30 days, Bambang said Megawati Sukarnoputri as President when it considers the Act does not provide any progress in the world of broadcasting Indonesia. "The provisions which applied applicant actually is a provision that raises doubts and distortions in our opinion the effort or accessing information as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution," said Bambang.

In a trial to hear Experts and Witnesses testimony of various parties, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission as the Related Party brings former politician Effendy Choirie PKB. Effendy said the effort to ignore the law in any way. For example, further Effendy, with the permission of the frequency of ownership can have more than one. "The transfer of permit was contrary to the spirit of using the frequencies for the overall prosperity of the people. It should not be allowed the transfer of licenses from one person to another. If the frequency is already ‘dead’, it should not be taken by others, but must be returned to the country, "he explained.

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)