The Constitution set the state of emergency can only be set by the Government, in this case is the President. Therefore, the determination of the status of the state of social conflict was supposed to be officially designated by the President. Because the status of the state of social conflict have the same qualifications as an emergency or danger status under the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945.

That is the underlying reason of Act No. 7 of 2012 on the Management of Social Conflict. The judicial review filed by the Society for Participatory Society Initiative for Transition Fair (IMPARSIAL), the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), as well as Deputy Director of the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), M. Choirul Anam and Indonesian Defense University Lecturer and Program Director RIDEP Institute, Anton Ali Abbas, which represented a number of legal counsel.

In the trial of the case number 8/PUU-XII/2014 in the plenary hall, Thursday (02/13/2014), the Applicant tested two articles in the law, namely Article 16 and Article 26. Both the decision reads:

Article 16

The state of the status scale conflict districts / cities as referred to in Article 15 paragraph ( 2 ) shall be determined by the regent / mayor after consultation with the leaders of regency / city.

Article 26

In a conflict situation status scale district / city, regent / mayor can do:

a. restrictions and area closures Conflict for a while;

b . restrictions outside the house for a while ;

c . placement outside the conflict area for a while, and

d . forbidding people to enter or exit from the conflict areas conflict area for a while.

Norms on which to base his constitutional argument is Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 12 , Article 18, paragraph 5 , and Article 28D paragraph 1 . Deeper, the Applicant considers that Article are tested against the constitution particularly on Article 12 UUD 1945 and Article 18, paragraph 5, which reads as follows.

Article 12

The President declared state of emergency. The terms and consequently danger set by law.

Article 18, paragraph 5

The regional governments run autonomy, except in matters of government by law to be the affairs of the Central Government.

Quoting from the opinion of experts, the applicant assesses social conflicts, including in emergencies danger. Thus, the status of a state of conflict, including the scale of the district / city should be set by the president, not the regent / mayor as a rule of the law. "Article 16 and Article 26 of the Law on Social Conflict Handling in the excessive delegation of power from central government to local governments , so contrary to Article 18 paragraph ( 5 ) of the 1945 Constitution," said one of the Petitioner’s attorney, Wahyudi Djafar.

Furthermore, Article 16 and Article 26 of the Act have created a situation of legal uncertainty in the determination of regulation regarding emergency status in Indonesia so contrary to Article 1 (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Because, at the same time is also applicable Law. 23/PRP/1959 of the State of Emergency which has elements, the terms, and the same elements with the provisions of the Act.

"With the two sets of authorities determine the status of an emergency / hazard as stipulated in the Act 23/PRP/1959, at the same time can appear two emergency status determination as well , namely by the president and regents / mayors," said Wahyudi.

Therefore, the Applicant appealed to the article stating contrary to the constitution and has no binding legal force.

In response to the petition, the panel of judges chaired by Judge Anwar Usman, Harjono and Patrialis asked Petitioner strengthen its legal standing to assert the constitutional losses suffered by the Applicant. "The question of the existence quo article, try to associate the existence of this law to the facts of the case," said Anwar. ( Lulu Hanifa / mh )