Petition filed by Hadi Setiadi to review the constitutionality of Article 24 paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4) of Law 8/2012 on General Elections DPR, DPD, and the parliament of the 1945 Constitution, cannot be accepted. "To declare the petition cannot be accepted," said Chairman of the Plenary Session Moh. Mahfud MD in cases registered No.109/PUU-X/2012, Wednesday (13/2) at the Plenary Court. According to the Court, the petition filed away. Therefore, the Court need not consider the legal status (legal standing) and principal petition.

In its opinion, the Court stated, among the request (posita) with the demands of an application or petition of any conflict with each other. On the one hand, the Applicant wants the division method constituencies created by the applicant included in Article 24 paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4) of Law 8/2012, but on the other hand, the Applicant wanted Article 24 paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4 ) Law 8/2012 declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution, as under Article 24 paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4) of the Act does not load on the distribution method constituencies.

Moreover, the method presented by the Petitioner, the Court is vague (obscuur), because the proposed method also cannot be used as an alternative in the choice of measures taken, so that cannot be used as a measure of assessing the constitutionality issue norms of Article 24 paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4) of Law 8/2012.

"As a scientific discovery, the method must first obtain a scientific test, which is not the authority of the Court in the test of the Constitution Act 1945. Moreover, according to the Court, a quo Act has defined a specific method for determining electoral districts (constituencies) and the allocation of seats even though, as a policy option, it is different with the proposed methods Petitioner," said the Court. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh)