Judicial review of Article 8, Paragraph (2) letter d of Act 8/2012 on General Elections Members of Parliament, House of Regional Representatives and Regional Representatives Council was held back by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (26/3). Case was registered with the Registrar of the Court was filed by Number 22/PUU-XI/2013. Petition was United National Party (PPN) represented by Oesman Sapta as Chairman and Ratna Esther Lumbantobing as the 

In a plea hearing improvement, Constitutional Justice Harjono asked Petitioner if it fixes the petition was submitted on March 21, 2013? Then Harjono also asked whether the improvements made would suffice? Responding to the question the judges, said it had handed Petitioner improvement on that date. In addition, he also said these improvements would suffice. Judge then legitimize some of the evidence submitted by the applicant, the evidence were P-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

"If the applicant is considered that the application is enough, already perfected in accordance with the advice of the judge, the preliminary examination to receive a repair, I stated quite and therefore, you’ll be waiting just after slaughter as many possible outcomes," said Harjono.

Harjono explained, this case may not be brought to the plenary and may not. "Even if there will likely be brought to the plenary, you can set up, in addition to the existing evidence, the completeness of the witnesses and experts, thus I deem sufficient and the trial I declare closed," said Harjono.

In a previous petition, the Petitioner argues harmed by the provisions of Article 8 paragraph (2) letter d Legislative Election Law, which states, "Political Parties that do not meet the threshold of the vote in the previous election or a new political party to be participating in the election after meeting the requirements: it has management in 50% (fifty percent) of the number of districts in the regency / city concerned. "In Election Year 2014 candidates were not passed by the Election Commission as a political party the 2014 election losses, both material and non material loss because of funds and energy spent management in shaping the district level in Indonesia, as well as loss because Petitioner did not escape the verification of factual inconsistencies due to the implementation of the provision. (Utami Argawati / mh)