---

The Constitutional Court decided the judicial review of Article 118 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (HIR) of the 1945 Constitution cannot be accepted. A decision Number 68/PUU-X/2012 was read by Deputy Chief Justice Ahmad Sodiki accompanied by five other constitutional judges.

 

"To declare the petition cannot be accepted," he read out the verdict Sodiki petition filed by Kokok Hadyanto.

 

In the opinion of the Court that was read by Judge Muhammad Alim, the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 118 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) HIR contrary to Article 23 of Law 8/1999, so it has no binding legal effect. Alim explained posita and the arguments in the above petition are not clear or blurred. On one side of the applicant, said Alim, filed a petition for judicial review of Article 118 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) HIR as judged contrary to Article 23 of Law 8/1999, giving rise to legal uncertainty. "But on the other hand, the Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review of Law 8/1999 which, according to Petitioner avoided by the District Court of Demak," said Alim.

 

In addition, added Alim, the petitions contradict each other, because on the one hand Petitioners filed testing the constitutionality of Article 118 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) HIR by postulating that the article is contrary to Article 23 of Law 8/1999 giving rise to legal uncertainty. However, on the other hand Petitioner argues that testing HIR formally and materially inaccurate because its formation is not based on the 1945 Constitution.

 

In addition, according to the Court, between posita and petitum there is a conflict between them. On the one hand, the Petitioner argues that the HIR test formally and materially inaccurate because its formation is not based on the 1945 Constitution. But on the other hand, the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 118 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) HIR contrary to Article 23 of Law 8/1999, so it has no binding legal effect.

 

"Based on the description of the foregoing considerations, the Court, the petition a quo is not clear or blurred. Therefore, the Court need not consider more about legal status (legal standing) The applicant and the principal issue," explained Alim. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)

---