Act 15/2006 on the Supreme Audit Board (BPK) is proposed for the judicial review by BPK Members Barullah Akbar to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (6/2). The trial chaired by Harjono.

The applicant, represented by his attorney, Arman Remi said that the Petitioner felt their constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution have been violated by the enactment of Article 22 paragraph (1) and paragraph (4) of the BPK. Arman presented that Petitioner before taking office as the interim replacement for BPK members, working in the BPK and the Ministry of the Interior for 28 years. Applicants selected as a member of BPK  replacing Tengku Muhammad Nurlif just continue the rest of his office term until 2014 in conjunction with the expiration of a term of 6 (six) other BPK  members.

"Petitioner since it was inaugurated as a member of BPK  through the appointment of interim compensation under the provisions of Article 22 paragraph (1) does not reach the 3 (three) years pursuant to Article 22 paragraph (4) of the BPK , when the Petitioner was no substantial difference between the ordinances" appointment of the intertemporal substitution "which refers to Article 22 paragraph (1) of BPK  and procedures" election "which refers to Article 13 and Article 14 of Act on BPK ," said Arman said the petition number 13/PUU-XI/2013.

Arman explained that Article 22 paragraph (1) that uses the phrase "the appointment of the intertemporal substitution" on which the appointment of the Petitioner as a member of BPK substitute rules system weaknesses. The mentioned norm, clearly Arman, was containing conflict with the norms of Article 4 and Article 5, paragraph (1) of BPK as an imperative norm (necessity) to determine their composition and tenure of members of BPK.

Responding to the petition, the panel of judges which also consists of the Constitutional Court Hamdan Zoelva and Mohammed Alim suggest improvements. The judges judge the petition as a whole is sufficient. Hamdan assess the applicant presented a description of the facts is too long. According to Hamdan, the most important is a description of these articles contrary to the principles of what is in the 1945 Constitution. "Description of change over time (PAW) is not appropriate, then the applicant must explain more clearly. It was to be built and refined. It should look correct if this Act had contradictory to the 1945 Constitution," he explained.

Meanwhile, Muhammad Alim explains in petitum, Petitioner requested that the petition be accepted and granted. This, according to Alim, is too much. "If you ask for granted, yeah that’s it. Because if accepted, will not necessarily be granted," he explained.

Judge gives 14 days to the applicant to carry out repair requests. The next agenda inspection repair requests. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)