The second trial for the case of Law No. 7/1989 on the religious court, the Law No. 51 of 2009 on State Administrative Court, and Law No. 49 of 2009 on the 1945 General Court to be held on Tuesday (15/5). The trial case filed by a judge at the Administrative Court (Administrative Court) Semarang, Teguh Satya Bhakti, this time repaired request. Teguh to convey a number of points improvement petition before the Panel.

The trial which started at around 14:30 pm was opened by the Chairman of the Panel, which was accompanied by Akil Mochtar Muhammad Alim, and Anwar Usman. Akil asked the Applicant to make improvements according to the suggestions in the previous trial judge panel. "At the last hearing, the panel has been providing advice and now there is no improvement request?" said Akil.

Answering questions Akil, True still without assistance from an attorney also said that he was fixing his request appropriate advice from a panel of judges. "As the suggestions presented to us in the first session, we add to the reasons for petition for testing this interpretation of the history of the chronology of the current status of judges is a practice effect during the colonial period," said Teguh who also said he added the test stone , namely Article 25 and Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution in addition to the existing stone diujikannya test at the first trial.

Firm also confirmed Akil questions about improvements to the petition the petition. In the petition the number 4, True to say that all benefits are entitled to state officials, including the applicant as the Administrative Court judge, should be set out in government regulations.

Before closing the hearing, Akil said that True as the applicant has sent a letter to invite the Judicial Commission (KY) and experts in the next trial to testify. True to respond to the arrival of the letter, Akil said it would be brought to the Consultative Meeting (RPH) and True are just waiting for a call from MK.

"As per the provisions of the legislation, we validate your evidence that is from P1 to P5 of the Act and others. Thus the proof we denote P1 to P5 legitimate. Even so, you’ll wait for a call from us, RPH determine whether or not there will be plenary. Relatives waiting for a call from the Court heard the testimony of the Government and Parliament. You can also call for immediate sentencing of this case," Akil said as he closed the hearing that was held in the plenary room, 2nd floor, Court House. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)