---

The application of Article 11 paragraph (2) of Act (Act) No.29/2007 on the Government of the Province of Jakarta Special Capital Region as the Capital of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia in determining the winning pair or pairs in the General Election elected Governor and Vice Governor of Jakarta in 2012 by the Commission Election Special Capital Region of Jakarta (Jakarta KPU) were considered out of sync with other laws, one of which is Article 107 paragraph (2) Law no. 12/2008 on Regional Government.

"The petitioners are aware Law. 29/2007 is the Special Act. However, Article 11 paragraph (2) Law no. 29/2007 did not heed, and do not synchronize with other laws that relate directly to Regional Head Election. Article is flawed, and made the capital of Jakarta Election inefficient," explained the Petitioners in their petition, at the preliminary hearing case Number 70/PUU-X/2012, in the Constitutional Court on Friday (20/7).

Petition filed by Abdul Havid Permana, Mohammad Huda, and Satrio Fauzia Damardjati are reviewing out the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (2) Law No.29/2007. The Petitioners own status as ordinary people in Jakarta, not sympathizers or supporters of one candidate, as stated in the petition.

The law, according to the Petitioners, is a special law that governs the course of Maharashtra Government, not the special General Election. "Should the issue of local elections, using the Jakarta Election Commission Law 12/2008 (instead of Article 11 paragraph (2) Law No.29/2007), which is clearly set all stages of Election, "explained the Petitioners.

In Article 11 paragraph (1) of a quo says, "A pair of candidates of Governor and Deputy Governor of the vote gained more than 50% (fifty percent) shall be determined as the Governor and Deputy Governor-elect"

Then in paragraph (2) states, "In the event that no candidate Governor and Deputy Governor of gaining votes referred to in paragraph (1), held the election of Governor and Deputy Governor of the second round, followed by a pair of candidates who obtained the most votes first and second in the first round.

As known, in the Act No.32 of 2004 on Regional Government, as amended by Act 12 of 2008 concerning the Second Amendment Act No. 32 of 2004 which is generally applied to determine the election of candidates and election second round differently. Where this Act in addition to determining the majority vote of more than 50% for the election of candidates, also determine if it is not meet, the pair of candidates for regional head and deputy head of the regions receiving more votes than 30% (thirty percent) of total valid votes, the couple candidates obtaining the largest vote declared the candidate elected.

In the suit or petition of the Petitioners at the hearing to ask the Court stated that the article has violated Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. "Declare (Article a quo) has no binding legal force," said attorney John tempest before the Petitioners Constitutional Assembly, which consists of Harjono, Hamdan Zoelva (chairman), and Anwar Usman.

Legal Standing Applicants

In this trial, the judges of the Constitutional obliged to provide advice at the request of the Petitioners.  Harjono started with questioning about the legal status (legal standing) of the Applicant. He said the applicant did not clearly state its position on the part of Jokowi-Ahok or outside a particular partner. "Are you related to Jokowi-Ahok, or close your eyes with a pair Establishments any election?" Harjono said the Constitutional Court.

In addition, Harjono also reminded the applicant, the basis of submission of application to eliminate the second round of the Capital City Election is wrong. Due, the applicant bases its implementation of the second round of the Capital City of the calculated fast (quick count). "The second round was essentially the recapitulation, not a quick count," said Judge Constitution.

Hamdan Zoelva, in this case ask the reason for testing presented by the Petitioners. According to him, "Is the problem just because it does not sync with other areas and against the 1945 Constitution?" said Hamdan "In fact, many of the norms in the law Establishments that do not fit elsewhere. What other differences do not you test too?" Hamdan said.

Responds to the advice given by the Constitutional Assembly, Iwan Prahara said it would improve the application. "We make this application one day after the vote count, so it is not maximized," said attorney of the Petitioners. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

---