Judicial review of Article 8, paragraph (1), paragraph (2), subsection (3) and paragraph (4) of Act 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment Act No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Act ), again held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (27/3). Case was registered with the Registrar of the Court number 25/PUU-XI/2013 was filed by Syafrinaldi who are candidates for Supreme Court justices in the Year 2011.

In a plea hearing improvement, Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Plenum accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and M. Akil Mochtar said that the repair request has been received and the applicant is included as well as suggestions from the judges, will then be presented to the plenary.

In addition, Muhammad Alim also approved written evidence has been submitted by the applicant’s attorney, the evidence that P-1, 2 and 3. "For the next waiting call Registrar of the Court, thus declared the trial is completed and closed," said Mohammad Alim.

At an earlier hearing, the Applicant through his legal counsel Endang Suparta said that Article 8 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), subsection (3), and paragraph (4) of Law MA, phrases approval as mandated by the Constitution of 1945, it editorial to be selected. The existence of these selected phrase, of course, have consequences and meaning of different laws, so because of the existence of a mechanism in the House of Representatives election. Applicants who are candidates for Supreme Court justices in the year 2011 as recommended by the Judicial Commission included in the top rankings of the candidates submitted, it was eliminated because of lack of clarity in the House election mechanism.

In addition, he also said that in the Law on the Judicial Commission stated that one of the responsibilities of the Judicial Commission filed a Supreme Court nominee to Parliament for approval so that the applicant has been assessed an overlap between Article 8 paragraph (1), (2), subsection (3), and paragraph (4) Supreme Court Act with the norms stipulated by the Law on the Judicial Commission.

Applicant judged that occurred in the absence of legal certainty in the selection and approval as stipulated by the constitution in other legislation, which resulted in Petitioner his constitutional rights. (Utami Argawati / mh)