After serving his sentence and was declared legally free from prisons Bandar Lampung, two former inmates (Prisoners), Sudirman Hidayat and Samsul Hadi Siswoyo, judging will be free and back to qualify as an Indonesian citizen and entitled to exercise their constitutional rights as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.

But in fact, even if the applicant has a criminal serving a sentence, they still get the other forms of punishment, especially political rights. Departing from these problems, the petitioners examined the explanation of Article 3 and Article 3 of Law no. 12/1995 on Corrections to the 1945 Constitution to the Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (28/8), at the Plenary Court Room. The trial was the case with preliminary hearing cases in the Court by Number 79/PUU-X/2012.

According to the Petitioner in his explanation, a quo Law 12/1995 have hampered in carrying out their political rights as stated in Article 58 letter (f) of Law no. 32/2004 on Regional Government, which set forth the requirements to be a candidate for regional head and deputy regional head.

"The applicant did not have complete freedom as citizens of other countries, notably the implementation of the political rights of citizens after the escape from the prison as stated Article 3 of Law 12/1995," said one of the applicant's attorneys.

The petitioners also said that the barrier is an additional punishment to the petitioners because they deprive their political rights. "As a member of the applicant is not free and responsible due to be sentenced to an additional form of revocation of their political rights," said the applicant.

On the other hand, according to the petitioners, the barriers to obtain political rights or political barriers to follow should not happen in Indonesia. Indonesia is a democracy, where every citizen has the right to elect and be elected. "Therefore, the right to elect and be elected in accordance with the teachings of the law (legal doctrine) is required as a positive obligation that can be implemented," explained the petitioners.

Article 3 of Law a quo says, "Correctional system function Patronage Residents prepare to integrate with the community healthy, so it can be played back as a society of free and responsible." And he explained, "The term 'integrated well' is restoration of the unity of Correctional Patronage relationships with community residents.”

Overarching the petitioners further said that Article 3 of the Act a quo did not explain what is meant by the phrase, "..., so it can be played back as a society of free and responsible." Therefore, the petitioners pleaded that the article has not declared binding legal force, and contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

While in petitum, the petitioners assert Article 3 and Article 3 of the Company Law a quo contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force throughout the phrase "..., so it can be played back as a society of free and responsible" interpreted as "... so can serve again as a society of free and responsible, including selected as Regional Head or Deputy Head and / or elected as a Member of the House of Representatives, or House of Regional Representative or Regional Representative Council. "

"(If that is granted), then the applicant will have no constitutional rights in the future," said the petitioners in their petition. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)