The Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (26/6), held a trial verdict. One case the verdict was read today, that is the case No. 38/PUU-X/2012, namely the review of Act 42/2008 regarding General Election of President and Vice President. Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court is also the Chairman of the Plenary Court, Moh. Mahfud MD read out immediately and the ruling of the Court’s conclusion to the petition filed by Moh. Abdur Rahman’s Tanwir. In the ruling of the Court the petition declared unacceptable.

"The decision, hearing, the petition declared unacceptable. Thus it was decided in the Consultative Meeting by eight constitutional judges," said Mahfud while correcting the written decision that states there are nine judges deciding constitutional cases.

Earlier, in a conclusion which is also recited Mahfud, the Court concluded that although the applicant has the right to sue or legal standing to file the petition, but the petition or the ne bis in idem has been settled by the Court.

Petition filed Tanwir, namely regarding the nomination of president and vice president that can only be filed by any political party has impaired her constitutional rights had already been corrected on the panel of judges who examine and repair application for a preliminary hearing. Constitutional Justice Maria Farida, Monday (7/5), said that similar requests have been tested to the Court. "These requests have been tested here and the Court should not re-examine the materials that have been decided," she said at the time.

Similar laws are also taken into consideration by the Court in ruling that the case was filed Tanwir. In the legal reasoning the Court stated that the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 56/PUU-VI/2008, dated February 17, 2009 has stated that the applicant asked for the Article 1 paragraph 4, Article 8, and Article 13 paragraph (1) of Law no. 42 of 2008 contrary to Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

"Considering that the norm contained in Article 8 and Article 13 paragraph (1) of Law 42/2008, have been decided by the Court in Decision No. 56/PUU-VI/2008, dated February 17, 2009," explained the Court. Tanwir himself intercedes for the testing of two articles, namely Article 8 and Article 13 paragraph (1) of the same and the same test with a stone. No decision of the Court to the case. 56/PUU-VI/2008 it reads, "To declare that the Petitioners’ petition is rejected for all".

Then according to Article 60 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court which declared the material content of the paragraphs, chapters, and / or the inside of the laws that have been tested, can not be petitioned again, the Court can not accept the petition.

"Considering that the same test as the norm and the articles of the 1945 Constitution which is used as a test stone and constitutionality is the same reason, the petition a quo should be declared ne bis in idem," said Hamdan Zoelva read out the legal considerations. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)