Judicial review of Act 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court finally rejected. The material tested on the selection committee’s decision exceptions in both central and local governments on the election results as an administrative decision (TUN) so that it can be sued in the Administrative Court. Decision by Number 116/PUU-X/2012 was read by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD assisted by seven judges.

"The argument is groundless petition according to law. Stating rejected the petition, "said Mahfud read the petition filed by Benny Kogoya.

In the Court’s opinion read by Justice Muhammad Alim, Article 2 g Administrative Court Act is an exception to state administrative decisions (TUN) as stipulated in Article 1 paragraph 3 of the Administrative Court Act. Understanding the Agency or the State Administrative Officer (Acting TUN) according to Article 1 paragraph 2 of Law Administrative Court did not refer only to the name or position of the structure in one of the state power, but also refers to the functions performed, so that the agency that runs the affairs of government based on laws and regulations laws and regulations can be considered as an official body or TUN.

"Thus, the Court’s decision TUN restrictions as set forth in Article 2, especially the letter g is needed so that not all decisions issued by the Board or Officer TUN can be sued in the State Administrative Court for decision a quo TUN is associated with the authority of the institution another," said Alim.

Dualism Authority

According to the Court, said Alim, the petition requesting the cancellation of Article 2 letter g of the Administrative Court Act will only lead to legal uncertainty because the cancellation clause in the law would result in the dualism of authority institutions in resolving disputes election results, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. Authority of the Administrative Court in adjudicating disputes election results in the absence of Article 2 of Law Administrative Court the letter g is based on Article 1 paragraph 3 of the Act.

"The authority of the Constitutional Court in adjudicating disputes over election results are based on Article 24C (1) of the 1945 Constitution which further set back in Article 10 paragraph (1) letter d MK Law in conjunction with Article 29 paragraph (1) letter d of Law 48/2009 . Based on the above legal considerations, according to the Court, the applicant’s arguments are not unreasonable requests by law, "he said.

Article 2 g tested Administrative Court Act states, "Not included in the terms of the Administrative Decisions under this Act: ..... g. Selection Committee Decision, both at central and local levels, the results of the elections ". Petitioner argues PTUN be double (multiple interpretations) implement article, because on the one hand the Decree of the Governor of Papua on the Determination of Elemental Leadership Council District. Decision TUN Tolikara as an object, but on the other hand Governor Decree does not include decisions TUN as Article 1 point 9 of Law Administrative Court, claiming that the Decree of the Governor of Papua Province is a political decision which is a continuation of the Commission Decision. If the article is declared binding by the Petitioners, there is no legal vacuum because the election dispute the authority of the Court. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)