---

The Constitutional Court rejected the petition of the applicant in the case concerning number 45/PUU-XI/2013 Testing Act No. 15 of 2011 on General Election and Act 2 of 2008 on Political Parties as amended by Act 2 of 2011 on the Amendment Act No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties.

"Petition of the Petitioners on Article 8 paragraph (1) letter c of Act 15 of 2011 and Article 16 paragraph (1) letter c of Act 2 of 2011 is not unreasonable under the law," said Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar pronunciation of the verdict in the trial, Wednesday (31/7) at the Plenary Court.

Petitioner in this case, among others, Members of Parliament South Central Timor Sefriths E. D. Nau, Council Member District Bone Haeril, Member of Parliament Bombana Abady, et al.

Previously, the applicant stated in his petition that the General Elections Commission (KPU) has abused its authority when establishing technical guidelines for the nomination of members of the House of Representatives (DPR) or the Regional Representatives Council (DPRD) of Commission Regulation No. 07 Year 2013 on Nomination of Members of Parliament, the Provincial People’s Representative Council, Regional Representatives Council and District / City.

In the provisions as amended by Commission Regulation No. 13 of 2013, the addition of the terms of the Petitioners highlight the obligation to make a statement letter of resignation to House members or legislators who want to run in the 2014 election with a different party.

There are at least two reasons for the objection raised by the Petitioners. First, the Commission forced the applicant to make a Resignation Letter irrevocable, whereas resignation referred to in Article 16 paragraph (1) letter b Political Parties Act essentially voluntary. Secondly, the Commission has taken over the authority to dismiss members of political parties as members of the party as well as a Member of Parliament as provided for in Article 16 paragraph (2) of the Law of Political Parties. Applicant concluded, the Commission has exceeded its authority in assessing the membership condition of political parties contesting elections for legislative candidates in the 2014 election.

As the Court stated in its consideration, the provisions of which were tested by the applicant is a norm delegating authority to the Commission as the election organizers to prepare and establish technical guidelines for each phase of the election.

"According to the Court, such provision is highly prevalent conditions and necessary; because it is not possible technical rules of each phase of the general elections set everything in the Act. Technical implementation of a norm should be further regulated in a lower regulatory and technical nature ie Election Commission Regulation (PKPU)," said Arief Hidayat Constitutional Court. Even if the regulations and technical guidelines are found in violation of the terms of the Act, the Court argued, is authorized to review Supreme Court (MA).

Unacceptable

Meanwhile, on the petition of the applicant on the test of Article 16 paragraph (3) Political Parties Act, cannot be accepted by the Court. According to the Court, the substance of this provision the same test with the Case Number 39/PUU-XI/2013, which pronounced its verdict just before pronouncing the verdict in this case?

"Although the basic test application in this application is Article 22E Paragraph (1), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28, Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (3), and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, but for reasons substantially the same petition on the grounds 39/PUU-XI/2013 petition in case number that has been disconnected previously, the consideration of the Court in Decision No. 39/PUU-XI/2013 such, shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the petition a quo," said Arief Hidayat.

According to Arief, resignation requirement as contained in PKPU 07/2013, which was followed by Circular No. 315/KPU/V/2013 about finding Eligibility Verification Administration and Terms Candidate Filing Candidate Member of Parliament, dated May 6, 2013, which a waiver of resignation was not relevant and cannot be applied anymore.

"Under the provisions of Article 16 paragraph (3) of Law 2/2011 that its meaning has been changed according to the Court’s decision, a legislator or legislators who come from political parties contesting the General Election of 2009 that his party cannot participate in the General Election in 2014 and was about to run as a member of Parliament or Parliament of the other political parties in the General Election in 2014, does not have to stop as a member of Parliament or Parliament being he held with certain conditions as set forth in the Court’s decision," said Arief Hidayat.

In Decision No.. 39/PUU-XI/2013, declared that Article 16 paragraph (3) of the Political Parties do not have binding legal force throughout the camp does not mean, "be waived for members of Parliament or the Council if: a. political party which nominated such member is no longer a participant election or management of the politics of the party no longer exists, b. DPR or DPRD members are not dismissed or withdrawn by the nominating political party, c. no longer have the replacement candidate listed in the List of Candidates nominating party ". (Dodi / mh)

---