Saurip Kadi, a retired Indonesian National Army (TNI), filed a judicial review toward four Acts at once. According to him, some formulations of the four laws that have tested it impaired his constitutional rights, especially related to the parliamentary threshold, presidential threshold, the change over time (PAW) for members of the legislature, and the existence of factions in the House of Representatives.

Thus Saurip Kadi stated in the first trial of Case Number 56/PUU-XI/2013, Tuesday (11/6) at the Plenary Court. The case is heard by the Constitutional Court Panel led by Deputy Chief Justice Ahmad Sodiki, accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and Arief Hidayat.

The provisions that were reviewed by the applicant, namely Article 208 of Act 8 of 2012 on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives, House of Regional Representatives and Regional Representatives Council, Article 3 Paragraph (5) and Article 9 of Law No. 42 Year 2008 on the Election of President and Vice-President, Article 12, paragraph e, g, and h Act No. 2 of 2011 on Political Parties, as well as Article 80 of Act 27/2009 on People’s Consultative Assembly, House of People Representatives, House of Regional Representative, and Legislative Council.

According to the applicant, the setting of the threshold of the vote to gain seats in parliament (parliamentary threshold) has damaged the people’s constitutional rights, especially for candidates and as applicant voters. Where people have been decisive in the choice of the form of selecting candidates at elections, but in the Article 208 of Act on Legislative Election determination of seats in parliament (DPR or DPRD) instead determined based on the percentage of votes a political party, not support, the candidates themselves. In fact, according to the Petitioner, through direct elections, the people have absolutely no bearing on or relationship with a political party.

"Strictly speaking, the people in the election did not ever do the social contract by political parties. So where the original rights, authority, or the authority which made the existence of political parties necessarily be the deciding factor of a candidate can or cannot qualify to be members of Parliament or the Parliament, even in his constituency he was winning the most votes," said Saurip Kadi.

Article 208 of Act on Legislative Election as questioned the applicant reads, "Political Parties Elections must meet the vote threshold of at least 3.5% (three point five percent) of the total valid votes nationally to be included in the determination of the seat members of the House of Representatives, Parliament provincial and regency / city.’

Therefore assess the applicant, the vote or support for political parties as a requirement in determining seat candidates, contrary to the Constitution of 1945 and the provisions on human rights (Human Rights). "Constitution does not mandate it, nor is there a constitutional right," he said. So he argued, it was clearly contrary to the articles of the 1945 Constitution, particularly on sovereignty, rule of law, and human rights.

Nor PAW rights held by political parties. According to the applicant, the authority to conduct PAW political parties based on Article 12, paragraph g and h the Political Party Law, has removed the constitutional right of legislative members in the PAW. So he argued, this is a serious misuse of the people’s sovereignty and basic rights as mandated by Article 1 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

After listening to exposure to the Petitioner, the Constitutional Court Panel then gave some suggestions and advice to revise Petition. Achmad Sodiki said some provisions of which were tested by the applicant, has also been tested in other cases, some of which had been cut and those that are in the process of examination. Therefore, the applicant is advised to study the decisions of the Constitutional Court did before and keep abreast of matters that are in the process. Furthermore Applicants are advised to revise their petition within the period of 14 days. (Dodi / mh)