---

Reviewing of Article 13 paragraph (5) of Act 15/2011 on General Election organizers read, "Team selection report on the implementation of each stage of selection to the House of Representatives". According to the House of Representatives (DPR), the norms contained in that article is clearly and firmly set the selection process for members of the Commission are made by the Selection Team.

 "So it is not unfounded if the norm is understood by the applicant has removed the spirit of realizing the independence of the election," explained Ganjar Pranomo as the representative of the House.

Parliament did not agree to consider the Petitioners’ argument that the provisions of Article 13 paragraph (5), the law contains ambiguities that led to legal uncertainty for Team Selection. "House as a State agency which has oversight functions are entitled to know the process," said Ganjar. "This is the application of a norm and there is no question the constitutionality of a norm is being violated," he added.

 While in Article 15 paragraph (4) the Act, particularly the phrase "In the event that no candidate is elected member of the Commission or KPU member candidates elected is less than 7 (seven) people ...", according to the Petitioners, create legal uncertainty for the work that has been and will be done by them. With regard to this issue, the House argued that article would provide legal certainty to manage all the possibilities that occur. "So there is no legal vacuum," said Ganjar.

 So that the final statement, Ganjar asked the Court to declare the applicant has no legal standing, and the petition of the Petitioners can not be accepted.” Petition of the Petitioners is rejected in its entirety," said Ganjar.

 However, it is different from that presented by the Government. According to Arif Fahrullah Zudan as the Government representative said that the government generally has the same goal with the applicant, the conduct of honest elections, fair elections through a professional organizer, integrity, and has a capacity of accountable.

 "Therefore, if the norm is considered a quo politics have not been able to realize the law is applied. So, let us together find the right norms, "said Zudan.

 So based on the description, further Zudan, the Government in the statement concludes that the Government is fully devolved to the Assembly the Constitutional Court related to the case filed by the Petitioners. "The government gave to the Court to examine, try and give a wise decision and as justly as possible," he explained.

 As reported previously, the Petitioners that Yuliandri (Lecturer Legislation UNAND), Zainal Arifin Mukhtar (Lecturer of the State Administration of UGM), Charles Simabura (Lecturer and Researcher of Pusako), and the Society for General Elections and Democracy (Perludem) has argued that Article 13 paragraph ( 5), Article 15 paragraph (4), subsection (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7), Article 87 paragraph (5), Article 89 paragraph (4), subsection (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of Law Number 15 Year 2011 about Election Organizer is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

 In Article 13 paragraph (5) more reads: "The team selection report on the implementation of each stage of selection to the House of Representatives”. According to the Petitioners, the provision was contrary to the spirit of the establishment of an independent election organizers. Therefore, the authority to form a candidate selection team member of the Commission is the authority of the President.

It was in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 paragraph (1) of Election Organizers. Then as the party was formed and / or appointed by the President, pursuant to Article 12 paragraph (2), the principal task of the candidate selection team member of the Commission is to assist the President to establish a candidate member of the Commission to be submitted to Parliament. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

---