Petitioner on the review of Act 24/2003 on the Supreme Constitutional Court (MK) following the plea hearing improvement in the Plenary Room, 2nd Floor, Court House, Friday (31/8). The second session of the Constitutional Court headed by Ahmad Sumadi Fadlil done briefly because his attorney represented Petitioner presented only the point’s improvement petition.

Petitioner Attorney, Muhammad Sholeh delivers petition improvement points. He said the improvements located on the legal standing of the Applicant after the hearing before a panel of judges those suggestions for an explanation of the legal standing not too short. "The issue of the authority, said yesterday there is no input on whether this is a legal entity or individual applying. Indeed, when we consider, we share it, better on behalf of individuals. Because if legal consequences later there are some things that must be met," said Sholeh.

In addition, there is the addition of Sholeh said on the subject of the petition. The petitioners relate a little article that every citizen is entitled to get a job.

Responding to the petition repairs done Petitioner, Fadlil said the court accepted the petition improvement delivered orally or in writing by the applicant. Fadlil was then checked at once endorsed the evidence presented by the Petitioner, the P1 to P5. "Okay, later on when the trial runs, you are allowed to submit additional evidence which you consider important to ask," added Fadlil.

In a preliminary hearing on Monday (14/8) reveals Sholeh violated Petitioner's constitutional rights with the enactment of Article 55 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, which reads as follows.

Testing regulations under legislation that is being undertaken by the Supreme Court shall be terminated if the statute on which the testing regulations are in the process of testing a verdict of the Constitutional Court to the Constitutional Court.

Sholeh quibble shaper of Article 55 does not understand the principles of the substance of the legislation. "Ideally, the termination of the trial in the Supreme Court, the relevant article in the Law on the Constitutional Court trials, not related to the Act. For articles in law are numerous and not all the articles of the law on the basis touchstone MA. Article 55 is not clear and not at all reflects the uncertainty in the law, because it was never explained since when testing regulations under the Act to be stopped by the Supreme Court, would have been registered since the Supreme Court or from the Court of Act on the basis of judicial review in the Supreme Court. Article 55 clearly been castrated authority MA, MA memasung authority, and makes no independent MA in testing regulations under the Act, legislators should realize and understand the authority of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court is different and should not overlap," said Sholeh at the time. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)