The petitioners questioned the government's interests as a party that considers the rights and / or authority aggrieved over the enactment of Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No. 29 Year 2007 on the Provincial Government of Andhra Pradesh as the Capital of the Republic of Indonesia (Jakarta Act). Is there Petitioners constitutional rights that are specific or special and actual, or at least the potential nature according to logical reasoning will certainly occur, and whether there is a causal relationship between the loss and the effect of the law petitioned for?

The question was posed by Dr. Ir. Suhatmansyah IS, M.Si, while conveying the government's statement in court judicial law Jakarta held at the Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (09/04/2012) afternoon. The trial for the third times the case 70/PUU-X/2012 particulars of Article 11 paragraph (2) of this Jakarta heard Listening Statement of the Government, the Parliament and the Witness / Expert of the applicant and the Government.

According to the government, continued Suhatmansyah, the petitioners cannot be constructing a clear regarding the loss suffered due to the constitutional validity of Article 11 paragraph (2) of DKI Jakarta, which states: in case no candidate Governor and Deputy Governor are gaining votes as intended in paragraph (1), an election of Governor and Deputy Governor of the second round, followed by a candidate who gets the most votes in the first and second rounds.  

The Government believes there is no causal connection directly to the constitutional rights of the Petitioners because it is not a candidate to contest in the General Election 2012 Jakarta. Petitioner is not in a position to be rejected and prevented his rights because the applicant was not a candidate for governor or lieutenant governor of Jakarta following the General Election, â € explained Suhatmansyah, expert staff of the Minister of Home Affairs Law, Politics and the Inter-Agency.

Furthermore Suhatmansyah explained, the system of Government of the Republic of Indonesia according to the 1945 Constitution recognizes and respects units that honor specific and special. As the embodiment of these provisions, in Indonesia there are some areas which have the specificity and / or the nature of the privilege to practice regulated by separate legislation? Jakarta provincial government as a unit which is special in its position as the capital of the Republic of Indonesia and the autonomous region, has an important function and role in supporting Homeland governance based on the 1945 Constitution. Because it needs to be given the specificity of duties, rights, obligations, and responsibilities in the governance area,” said Suhatmansyah.

Government in the petition asking the Court rejected the petition of the Petitioners entirely or at least to declare the petition cannot be accepted. Then, receive information from the Government as a whole. Finally, declare the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (2) of DKI Jakarta does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution.

Meanwhile, Dr. H. Fauzi Bowo and Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Nachrowi Ramli as Candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor of DKI 2012-2017 period the parties in this case, through their attorneys, Widodo Iswantoro, said the essence of Article 11 paragraph (2) of DKI Jakarta does not imply restrictions on someone’s freedom to do or realize their fundamental rights. The a quo provision gives an opportunity to all citizens to realize their rights in the determination of his choice in the election of Governor and Deputy Governor of Jakarta in the second round, because the first round was not able to meet the conditions suggested by Act 12/2008 and Act on Jakarta,” said Widodo.

In this time trial, the appellants presented as an expert Irman Putra Sidin. Irma in his statement said that there are two standards for determining legal policy candidate elected governor and lieutenant governor in the model of direct election. For the determination of Jakarta elected partner must obtain 50% more sound, while outside special areas with enough 30% of the vote.

Filling the office of governor and deputy governor of Jakarta using the same model to other regions, namely the election alias direct election of regional heads with the same organizers of the Electoral Commission and the supervisor of the same and the same principles are in accordance with Section 22E of the 1945 Constitution, â € says Irma.

As is known, a judicial Jakarta Act was filed by Abdul Havid Permana, Muhammad Huda, and Satrio Fauzia Damardjati. The applicants who took the legal position as individual citizens of Jakarta and have the right to vote in the General Election Governor of DKI Jakarta aggrieved impaired his constitutional rights with the enactment of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Government of DKI Jakarta. The constitutional question regarding the implementation of the second round of Jakarta Election drain budget comes from taxes paid by the applicant. In addition, the provision does not sync with Article 107 paragraph (2) of Act 12/2008 concerning the Second Amendment Act No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Governance for distinguishing between Capital Jakarta with other regions. Therefore, according to the applicant, the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (2) of DKI Jakarta is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)