Revision trial of judicial review on Act 17/2004 (UU MD3), held by Constitutional Court on Thursday (10/2). Attended the hearing, Sutopo Simbolon, Surtrisno’s attorney.

“In the today hearing, we want to deliver several revision, including pole-reviewing Article 28I verse (2) 1945 Constitution. Other Articles are revoked, so the petition may proceed,” Sutopo said

Aside from it, the Plaintiff asked Article 67 letter b Supreme Court Act (UU MA) declared opposing Article 28I verse (2) 1945 Constitution. “We asked the Panel to declare the Article non-binding,” he added.

Validated Evidence

“We have received the revision. We will examine the document and validate your p-1 to p-15 evidences,” Justice Patrialis Akbar said.

The judicial review was petitioned because DPR and DPRD duties are technically the same, regarding of what determined in Act 17/2014.

Besides, the ruling regulates people’s representatives in DPRD unconstitutional given DPRD speakers are not elected by the members.

Although MK has decided over the Act, the Plaintiff still asked for further examination due to different object the Plaintiff concerning in.(Nano Tresna Arfana/mh/kun)