Formal review of Law (UU) 8/2012 on General Elections DPR, DPD, and Parliament of the 1945 Constitution, which is applied by the Indonesian National Party (PNI) entirely rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). Because, said the Court, setting the Law 8/2012, which formally tested by the applicant is in line with the provisions of Article 1, paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

"Amar verdict, prosecuting, said the petition to reject entirely," said Mahfud MD as Chairman of the meeting in case Number 54/PUU-X/20120 reading decision on Wednesday (29/8) at the Plenary Court.

Against this test, the applicant assess Law 8/2012 formally in the process of its formation has ignored the principles of the aspirations of the people. However, the Court said, the people's representatives in Parliament are carriers aspirations, so the Court found no waiver sila unity of Indonesia in Law 8/2012 and did not find anyway a threat to the Republic of Indonesia.

On the other hand, the Petitioner also argued that the tradition of changing any election law ahead of elections illustrates the political and legal uncertainty. Responding to this, the Court said, changing entirely the authority of law forming law, in this case the House with the President. "So any time, if deemed necessary, forming the Law can change or alter a law," said the Court.

Formation of Law 8/2012, the applicant also has the potential to eliminate the constitutional rights of political parties. In regards thereto, the Court said the Act a quo does not eliminate the right of political parties to conduct the recruitment of cadres, has not deterred political parties to express their aspirations and needs.

"Acceptable or not received an aspiration, a proposal, a need, it depends on the mechanisms occurring in the hearing establishment Act," the Court explained in its decision.

While the terms of membership election was unfair and discriminatory in Law 8/2012 argued by the Petitioner, the Court considered that, if there is a substance of paragraphs, chapters, and / or parts according to the applicant contrary to the 1945 Constitution, the substance that is tested material. Then if such a case is proven, the Court will declare contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

In addition, the Court also addresses the Petitioners' argument that states that the establishment of Law 8/2012 undermines pluralism and unity and diversity. According to the Court, Article 208 of Law is the same as the test material as submitted by the Petitioner Case Number 52/PUU-X/2012 51/PUU-X/2012 and approved by the Court on August 29, 2012, so it does not need to be considered.

Furthermore, in addition to conflict with the articles of the 1945 Constitution, the Petitioner in his petition also argued that the Act 8/2012 contrary to the Chapter I General Provisions Chapter II Establishment Principle Regulation Legislation. In response, according to the Court Article 24C (1) of the 1945 Constitution, among others determined that the Court authority to hear at the first and last which shall be final, the 1945 Constitution Act.

"So reviewing Act against the Constitution per se, that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the Act, not the authority of the Court," said the Court. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)