---

Expert of the Petitioners No.78/PUU-IX/2012, Ichlasul Amal, said that in fact the centralization and concentration of media ownership, especially the broadcast media to deny the 1945 Constitution as well as contrary to Law. 32 of 2002.Because, the second rule, is expressly requires the existence of an expanded area of autonomy which mandates that the dynamics of broadcasting, including both ownership and it may also grow in the area.

It says so in the judicial proceedings Broadcasting Act No. 32/2002, particularly Article 18 paragraph (1) and Article 34 paragraph (4), in the Constitutional Court on Thursday (5/4). According to him, basically the law also mandates a networked broadcast system that accommodates the dynamics in the region. "But it does not run well," he said.

More than that, said Ihchlasul, the Act also mandates that television broadcasters in the region, particularly local television is not controlled by Jakarta. But that happens, local television / area controlled by the national television station in Jakarta through the interpretation is wrong and contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Through the Court, he added, expects to Law no. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting interpreted correctly, and beyond that the Act does not contravene the 1945 Constitution. "All for the welfare of the community and the nation of Indonesia," he concluded.

Other experts also presented by the Petitioners, it is Paul Widiyanto. In his statement, he supported the petition of the Petitioner and in essence, that Article 18 paragraph (1) Broadcasting Act is constitutional to Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28F, and Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. But as far as the phrase "a body of law" is interpreted as "a good legal entity holder Broadcasting Organisation (IPP) is a private broadcasting institutions (LPS), or any legal entity and any level-controlled and has a private broadcasters (LPS)" ."Then the word ‘limited’ is defined as" restricted to a broadcasting license (IPP) within a broadcast area, "he explained.

Meanwhile, Article 34 paragraph (4) the Broadcasting Act, Paul also agrees with the constitutionality of Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28F, and Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. However sejauah phrase "other side" is interpreted as "individuals or legal entities in the form of LPS which has IPP also any legal person and any abbreviated master / have LPS."

The trial, led by Moh. Mahfud MD is the last trial before the verdict. "Therefore, before the constitutional assembly to start the discussion, asked the applicant, Government, and Related Party to submit the conclusions of the entire course of the trial, according to the perspective of each party," he said.

Conclusions, further Mahfud, may be submitted on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, Time 16:00 pm, at the Court House, 4th floor. "After that will be told to the pronunciation of the verdict (the verdict)," he explained.

In detail, the applicant consisting of 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, testing this Article Article 18 paragraph 1 and Article 34 paragraph 4 stars. 32/2002 Broadcasting Act.

Article 18 paragraph (1) reads, "Concentration of ownership and control of private broadcasting institutions by one person or legal entity, either in the broadcast area and in some areas of broadcasting, is limited. And Article 34 paragraph (4) reads, "prohibited broadcasting license transferred to other."

However, these provisions of the said petition, giving rise to multiple interpretations of injustice and legal uncertainty. "Additionally, these articles also removes the principles, objectives, functions, and the principle of broadcasting that is contrary to Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution," the light of the Petitioner, on the previous trial. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

---