The Constitutional Court rejected the petition against Article 8 Paragraph (2) d of Law No. 8 of 2012 on the Election of Members of Parliament, House of Regional Representatives, and Local Parliament of the 1945 Constitution. Decision with 22/PUU-XI/2012 number proposed by the United National Party ( PPN ) was read by Chief Justice Akil Mochtar , accompanied by seven judges of the constitution on Wednesday ( 28/8 ) at the Plenary Court Room . "That said, the petition cannot be accepted," he said.

According to the Court , that the provisions of Article 8, paragraph ( 2 ) of Law 8/2012 , in which includes the provisions of Article 8, paragraph ( 2 ) d of Law 8/2012 petitioned for its constitutionality has been tested and decided by the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Court Decision No. 52 / PUU-X/2012, dated August 29, 2012.

The Court said that the Constitutional Court Decision No. 52/PUU-X/2012 earlier, the determination of the terms of the political party that will follow the election, as provided in Article 8, paragraph ( 2 ) of Law 8/2012, a legal policy of the former Act for simplify the number of political parties.

Decision No. 52/PUU-X/2012 associated with the assessment given by the Court is against Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law 8/2012 as a whole, in which requirements include a letter to the letter i. Court has affirmed the ruling that the verification requirements established by Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law 8/2012 is constitutional or not contrary to the 1945 Constitution during the enforced without exception to all political parties to register as participant’s General election.

It also commented, regarding the provision of non-performance or norms is not directly related to the constitutionality of the relevant provision or norms. The Court considers that the non-performance of any provision of law does not necessarily make such provision loses its constitutionality. However, to ensure that the Electoral Commission to implement the provisions in the Act 8/2012, particularly Article 8, paragraph (2) of Law No.8/2012 d, according to the Court , other remedies may be done by the applicant . ( Utami Argawati / mh )