The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing of the Review of Act 8/2012 on the Election of Members of Parliament, Council and Parliament on the 1945 Constitution. This request was recorded with two different numbers, i.e., Case 54/PUU-X/2012 and Case 55/PUU-X/2012. The petitioners are Noviantika Nasution (National Party of Indonesia), Max Lau Siso (PDP), Badikenita Sitepu (PNBKI), and Lasmidara (PPDI) as Petitioner 54/PUU-X/2012 and Nasdem Party as Petitioner 55/PUU-X/2012.

In the trial, the applicant has improved the application in accordance with the Constitution of the judges advice on the previous trial. Muhammad Rullyandi Nasdem Party as the legal representative explained the petition has been improving, especially on the touchstone of the 1945 Constitution. "The articles a quo does not meet the principle of justice as guaranteed in Article 22E Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because it gives two different requirements for candidates for the elections. Article 8 paragraph (1) and Article 8 paragraph (2) of a quo is discriminatory and contradictory to Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution because there are different requirements for political parties to pass the threshold at the previous election and to the new Political Parties verified, "he said in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court is headed by Deputy Chief Justice Achmad Sodiki.

Meanwhile, the Petitioners in Case Number 54/PUU-X/2012 also have improved the legal status (legal standing). S. Agus Supartono as PNI Chairman explained that the applicant is an individual who is a cadre of the PDP, and PPDI PNBKI change its legal status into a public legal entity. "In terms of legal standing of a harmonious blending over the same ideology with the applicant 2 to 5 and merge into a single applicant, so PNI. About the Constitution as a touchstone, we added Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution. Petition made improvements," said Agus.

The petitioners in their petition questioning the election requirement of participants to discriminate between political parties that meet the parliamentary threshold, known as parliamentary threshold (PT) in the previous election by the PT are not eligible. In addition, the provisions of PT is considered a just cause legal uncertainty and lead to public disorder. The increase in PT of 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent are considered damaging the diversity of the nation and led to many entities and local communities are embodied not well represented. In their petition the Petitioners testing this Article 8 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2012. The applicant considers that the constitutional rights guaranteed by Section 22E (1), Article 28D (1), and Article 28I (2) adversely affected by the 1945 enactment of the a quo article. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)