Chairman of Consumer NGOs Telekomunikasi Indonesia (NGO-KTI), Denny A. K. filed reviewing Act 17/2007 on the Long Term Development Plan 2005-2025 of the 1945 Constitution. However, due to legal issues and the application of this case are not clear, the Court stated in its decision, application Applicants cannot be accepted. This was stated in the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 75/PUU-IX/2011, at the Plenary Room, Tuesday (17/4). In addition the Court also stated in the provisional application rejected.

Just testing the constitutionality of the applicant in Attachment Law 17/2007 on the Long Term Development Plan of 2005-2025, in Appendix D of "Adequate Infrastructure and Forward" in item 31 page 55 and page 56, in particular the phrase "application of the concept of technology neutrality are responsive to market needs and industry while maintaining the integrity of the existing system. "

The reason is because the Court has ruled on several considerations, including in the petition filed by the Applicant. The Court there is no definition in petitum phrase "application of the concept of a neutral technology that is responsive to market needs and industry while maintaining the integrity of the existing system" in the articles of Law 17/2007.

The argument was, according to the Court, concerning the provision of the definition of the phrase is in the Law 17/2007 forming the authority of the Act. "Court has no authority to alter and / or provide a definition of the phrase in the Appendix of Law 17/2007 in accordance with Petitioner’s argument," wrote the Court.

In addition, Petitioner also argues that the constitutional rights provided for in Article 18A paragraph (2), Article 18B paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 33 paragraph (1), paragraph 2 and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution disadvantaged. But according to the Court, the Petitioner did not spell out clearly the constitutional rights and the loss to the enactment of the Act Appendix 17/2007 being applied, resulting in Petitioner’s petition to be unclear and vague.

"Although the Court has the authority to hear the petition a quo and the applicant has a prima facie legal standing to file the petition a quo, but because the petition is unclear and vague it does not qualify the petition filing petition for judicial legislation," said the judge in the Constitutional Court’s opinion.

Regarding the improvement of the petition, according to the Court under Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court stated, "In the investigation referred to in paragraph (1) The Constitutional Court shall advise the applicant to complete and / or correct the petition within a period of more than 14 (four fifteen) days ". The new application fixes accepted December 2, 2011, so that the grace period has passed. Therefore, the Court bases its judgment only on 30 September 2011 petition received by the Court on October 7, 2011. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)