Sumiarto that claims in a state of sickly rules apply for judicial elections for members of Parliament, Council, and Parliament, as well as the election of President and Vice President are required implemented “immediately “. The rules were tested , namely Act on Legislative Election, the Presidential Election Law and Election Law deemed not to adjust based on the decision of the Court related to the Bali Election allow voting on election represented as a state of pain . The mismatches created legal uncertainty for the Petitioner in the 2014 election.

The applicant’s attorney, Sunggul Hamonangan Sirait also stated at the hearing that the regime requested firmness and presidential elections took place in Pileg with honest and fair principle. In the presence of constitutional judges, Sunggul said petition or claim (petition) filed by the Applicant to be replaced. According to the bun, the petition of canceling Law quo is requesting interpretation of the Court. "We also changed in his petition, which petition stated previously canceled, have we replace it with the Court gives interpretation of the law," said Sunggul in the Plenary Court, Tuesday (25 / 03) afternoon.

Petitioner’s attorney, Freddy Alex Damamik also said, removing some Petitioners also requested the article be used as a touchstone, one of which is the Supreme Law as contained in the initial application. Not only that, the applicant also asked the Court to process his petition faster due to the upcoming election.

As is known, the Petitioner in his petition assessing the principles of direct, general, free , confidential , honest , and fair it cannot be delegated or not delegated to others in the election , both legislative and presidential elections. The applicant felt the principle violated their constitutional rights at any time to provide trust or authorize the closest person or persons who he believed to voice or a particular party or candidate vote specified in the Presidential Election and Legislative Election, as well as the forthcoming General Election.

Petitioner asks the Court ill easy to generalize the Election Court decision in Papua and Bali and the possibility of an election that is represented by another person , be it civil , family , and tribal chief in determining his choice , because it is the Applicant realized no explicit prohibition in the rule of law Indonesia regarding the representation .

In a lawsuit 17/PUU-XII/2014, the Applicant requested the Presidential Election Law Article 2, Article 1 point 1 Election Law, and Article 1 paragraph 1 and Article 2 of Law on legislative election does not have binding force along with all the legal consequences are not mean that the " direct " in these articles can accept voters who voted more than once or voters who are represented as Decision Number 62/PHPU.D-XI/2013. Or Petitioner asks the Court gave judicial interpretation of the clauses in the law so that all three are not contrary to the Court Decision No. 62/PHPU.D-XI/2013.

The applicant also requested the Court to declare the articles that have not tested the binding legal force with all its legal consequences does not mean that all is " direct " in these articles can accept voters who voted more than once or voters who are represented as Court Ruling number 62/PHPU.D-XI/2013 . In addition , the applicant is also requesting alternative demands , which begs the Court gave judicial interpretation ( constitutive ) on these articles so as not to conflict with the Court Decision No. 62/PHPU.D-XI/2013. (Panji Erawan / mh )