Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional the conditional phrase "... as referred to in Article 83 ..." in Article 116 paragraph (4) of Act 32/2004 on Regional Government. "The phrase ‘as referred to in Article 83’ in Article 116 paragraph (4) Local Government Act contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 to the extent not understood ‘as referred to in Article 80’. The phrase ‘as referred to in Article 83’ in Article 116 paragraph (4) Local Government Act also declared to have no binding legal effect to the extent not understood ‘as referred to in Article 80’. Article 116 paragraph (4) More Government Law should be read, ‘Every state officials, the structural and functional in his country and village heads who willfully violates the provisions referred to in Article 80 shall be punished by imprisonment for 1 (one) month or at 6 (six) months and / or fined. 600,000.00 (six hundred thousand dollars) or at most Rp.6.000.000, 00 (six million rupiah) ‘, "explained Mahfud read the verdict. 

Article 83 is referred to by Article 116 paragraph (4) its own set of "campaign funds" that has no relation whatsoever to the state officials / civil servants / village head, but Article 116 paragraph (4) own set restrictions for state officials / government are more reads "Every state officials, the structural and functional in the country office and the village head who willfully violates the provisions of Article 83 shall be punished by imprisonment for 1 (one) month or more than 6 (six) months and / or a fine of least Rp. 600,000.00 (six hundred thousand dollars) or at most Rp. 6,000,000.00 (six million rupiah) ". This is considered an error to refer article. While Article 80 of the Regional Government requested the Court to be referred as constitutional, is a set of state officials, the structural and functional in the country and the village head office is prohibited to make decisions and / or actions that benefit one or merugikah candidates during the campaign. 

The verdict was read 17/PUU-X/2012 numbered by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD with other constitution was accompanied by eight judges on Tuesday (1/5) at the Plenary Court Room. Petition is filed by Heriyanto as Team Assistant Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu). Petitioner argues the Court filed a constitutional test phrase "as referred to in Article 83" in Article 116 paragraph (4) of Law 32/2004 contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 22E paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, arguing that the phrase refers to one article. This is because Article 83 of Law 32/2004 instead of the prohibition against state officials, the structural and functional in the land office, and village leaders to make decisions and / or actions that favors or disfavor a candidate during the campaign, but a set of funding campaign. 

As for the article which governs the prohibition against state officials, the structural and functional in the land office and village leaders to make decisions and / or actions that favor or disfavor a candidate during the campaign, is Article 80 of Law 32/2004. Therefore, to eliminate the legal uncertainty contained in the norm because of errors in the reference section, the Court needs to provide legal certainty in order to uphold justice by stating that the phrase "as referred to in Article 83" in Article 116 paragraph (4) of Law 32/2004 should read "as referred to in Article 80". "Considering that based on all the above considerations the Court found the petition proven and reasonable under the law," said one judge of the constitution. In conclusion, the Court concluded that the Court has the authority to adjudicate the petition. "The applicant has a legal status (legal standing) to file the petition a quo. Subject request is founded under the law, "said Mahfud. (Lulu Anjarsari / Miftakhul Huda/Yazid.tr)