---

Verdict announcement session on Act of Legislative Elections (Undang-Undang Pemilu Anggota DPR,DPD, dan DPRD) on Wednesday (18/02) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) granted withdrawal on Applicant’s petition of judicial review on Article 51 (1) letter k, Article 51 (2) letter h and letter I and Article 58 (2) letter h Act Number 8 Year 2012 of Legislative Elections (Undang-Undang Pemilu Anggota DPR,DPD, dan DPRD) at the verdict announcement session held on Wednesday afternoon (18/2). The petition was listed in Number 14/PUU-XIII/2015. “(The Court) Grants withdrawal on Applicant’s petition,” stated Chief Justice Arief Hidayat accompanied by other Constitutional Justices.

The Court had received petition dated October 20, 2014 filed by Fathul Hadie Utsman and Fatahillah which received by Court’s Registrar on December 18, 2014. Towards the petition, the Constitutional Court had published Decree of the Chief Justice of Constitutional Court concerning the Justice Panel Determination to examine Petition Number 14/PUU-XIII/2015 dated January 19, 2015.

On February 9, 2015, the Court had received petition withdrawal request which signed by the Applicant. Towards the withdrawal, the Justice’s Consultative Meeting (Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim –RPH) on Monday February 17, 2015 determined the petition withdrawal had legal ground.

Based on Article 35 (1) and (2) Act Number 24 Year 2003 of the Constitutional Court as amended by Act Number 8 Year 2011 of Act Amendment Number 24 Year 2003 of the Constitutional Court, “The Applicant could withdraw the petition before or during the Court examination conducted”, and “The withdrawal as referred in paragraph (1) resulting the Petition cannot be re-filed”.

At the preliminary session, the Applicant argued the enactment of articles in Act Number 8 Year 2012 were contrary to Article 27 (2), and Article 28D (2) the 1945 Constitution because of the Applicant dismissal caused by legislative candidacy implied civil servant could be dishonorably dismissed and didn’t get paid from the institution concerned.

According to the Applicant, the enactment of Act Number 8 Year 2012 was contrary to Article 28D (1) the 1945 Constitution because it was affirmed in the Act a quo that a civil servant could be state official, however he should temporary resign from his position as civil servant for legislative candidacy. If a civil servant who run candidacy didn’t temporary resign, they will be dishonorably dismissed.

Stiil according to the Applicant, the Applicant couldn’t support several qualified civil servants and TNI/Polri officers to run candidacy because of the enactment of Act Number 8 Year 2012. It was because if they run candidacy, they will be dishonorably dismissed from their job. The enactment of Act Number 8 Year 2012 was violated his rights; right to work and right to grant legal certainty, due to there were two conflicting legal norms. In one hand, the civil servants could be state officials, but in other hands, the civil servant who run candidacy for state officials or being political party member will be dishonorably dismissed from their job. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N)  

 

---