Application for judicial review cases (PUU) No. 8/2012 on General Elections of House of People Representatives, House of Regional Representatives and Regional Council Members in Case No. 108/PUU-X/2012 finally entirely rejected by the Constitutional Court. Similarly, the Court delivered its verdict in the trial on Wednesday (13/3) afternoon.

"Conclusion, based on an assessment of the facts and the law as explained above, the Court concludes: Court has the authority to hear the petition a quo; the petitioners have legal standing to file the petition a quo; argument Petitioners’ petition is groundless according to law. Verdict rejected the petition to all," said Chief Justice of the Plenary Mahfud MD accompanied by other constitutional judges.

Petitioner Antonius Iwan Dwi Laksono and Saiful Mochamad concerned about the lack of rules disallow period of office of the Parliament and Council, as President and Vice President are limited periods of his tenure. According to the Court, the Constitutional Court No. 14-17/PUU-V/2007 dated December 11, 2007 stated, "... any public office or position in the government in a broad sense, both the filling done through elections or through other means, demanding requirements of public confidence. In other words, public office is a position of trust ..."

"Thus, the people as the main subject in the principle of popular sovereignty not only as an object placed by contesting alone in achieving victory," said M. Akil Mochtar who read the opinion of the Court.

The Court, presidential term limits cannot be equated with the same restrictions for a term of members of Parliament and the Council, due to the position of the two positions are different. The President is the sole position that has full authority to exercise the power of government, so that the restriction is necessary to avoid abuse.

"Members of Parliament and Regional Council are a compound term that every decision made collectively. So it is very little possibility of arbitrariness," said Akil.

"As for political parties can only narrow down its members, to sit in Parliament and Council. It is the internal policy of each political party that does not conflict with the constitution," said Akil.

Furthermore, according to the Court, the public office is completed done by election by the people cannot be left entirely to the people without any conditions at all. For such positions must be occupied by someone who has a high quality and integrity. The nomination of a person referred to in Article 27 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution does not mean that the state should not regulate or define terms.

The setting allowed all the requirements are objectively required by the demands of a particular position or activity of government and non-discriminatory in the sense of not discriminating on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, language, gender, political beliefs, or other certain social status. Setting and / or determination of such requirements is a mechanism that would allow the election took place in a fair and reliable. Based on the above considerations, the Court, the petition is groundless according to law. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh).