Heriyanto as Bawaslu Assistance Team often receive complaints from local Panwaslu due to the provisions of Article 116 paragraph (4) Law no. 32 of 2004 on Regional Government (Regional Government Law). Penalty provided for in this article refers to the wrong article, namely Article 83, when it should be provisions that are prohibited under Article 80.

On Thursday (8/3) this Court held a hearing in the matter of improving the Regional Government Testing, - the case No.17/PUU-X/2012 - in Plenary Room, Fl. 2, and the Constitutional Court Building. In this case, the applicant said that he was fixing his petition, in which one of the touchstones reviewed in the Act, relating to legal certainty.

"I also fix the touchstone in this Act, which is about the rule of law. The rule of law in Article 116 referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 83, makes this section is not operational, "said Heriyanto in front of Judge of the Constitutional Assembly led by Anwar Usman, accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and Muhammad Alim, respectively as members.

The existence of Article 116 paragraph 4 which refers to Article 83, continued to make Panwaslu Applicant (Election Supervisory Committee) area of ​​confusion."Supervisory Committee is confused at the local level. In fact, the provisions of this criminal act are prohibited under Article 80 of Act 32 of 2004, "explained Petitioner.

Then, Petitioner said, Panwaslu is the first door of the Electoral Criminal Justice System (an integrated law enforcement system) in the general election along with police and prosecutors. "Supervisory Committee should be able to decipher crime elections. If the article is incorrect to refer, of course, this article will not be operational and uncertain," he said. "So that the report related to Article 116 paragraph 4 of this cannot be followed up, because it will surely be killed in the police. This article cannot prove the elements, "added Heriyanto.

In Article 116 paragraph (4) Local Government Act reads, "Every state officials, the structural and functional in the country office and village heads who willfully violates the provisions of Article 83 shall be punished by imprisonment for 1 (one) month or a maximum of 6 (six) months and / or fined. 600,000.00 (six hundred thousand dollars) or at most Rp. 6,000,000.00 (six million rupiah).

"

This article cannot be acted upon by the Petitioner. Provision has created legal uncertainty, injustice, and disadvantages. "This condition is violated equality before the law, equality before the law," said the previous applicant. Therefore, he then uses four stones in the 1945 trials, namely Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 22E paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1).

Therefore, the claim (petition), the Petitioner asks the Court to invalidate Article 116 paragraph (4) Local Government Act to the extent the phrase "... as referred to in Article 83", the phrase should be "as referred to in Article 80". Because Article 83 does not regulate the substance of criminal events committed by state officials, officials of the structural and functional, but just set the subject of candidates and / or campaign team. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)