national" and Article 8 of the paragraph (2) throughout the phrase " The Political Party is not

meeting the voting threshold at previous elections or " UU

Legislative Elections, the House of Representatives addresses the following:

73

Parpol to be able to take part in the next Election and the provision

applies to all Parpol. Because a parpol is not easy to be able to

qualify PT if it does not get popular support in the elections. An

parpol is not sufficient only with the administrative capital of administrative terms to participate

elections, but the terms of recognition of the people's support are paramount. That

looks real in the terms of the PT passes. c. With regard to the objections of the applicant with the provision of the provisions

Section 8 of the paragraph (1) and the paragraph (2) are considered detrimentally to and is

discriminatory, and will result in a legal uncertainty and

the inequal treatment of the law for all political parties so

The petitioners will be deterred in terms of the constitutional rights

advancing themselves in the collective cause of the society to

build society, it can be explained that actually the provisions

Article a quo applies to all political parties. if that is not

qualify the threshold at the upcoming Election. Because, the results of an

election in which a political party obtained a number of votes later

can be converted into a seat is an indication or a major parameter

whether the political party gets significant people's support

or not. The election is momentum to see such support. By

because that provision of such requirements is not a form

discriminatory. d. This provision also sees that there is no ban on any citizens

the state to form a political party and subsequently to contest the election.

For example, it has been set up in the Law on Political Parties with a number

The terms and legislation of this Election govern the political parties that can

participate in a number of requirements.

e. As an explanation must also be realized that a political party that meets the

threshold at the previous election, must also submit a number

the document as set forth in Article 8 of the paragraph (2) of the bill a quo

as a form of seriousness and commitment to whether or not the political party

wishes to contest again or not, although in Article 8 of the paragraph (1) Act

a quo is said to be automatically defined as an Election participant.

87

An ideology in the democracies. The political parties have at least four functions,

that is i) the party as a means of political communication; ii) the party as a means of socialization

politics; iii) the party as a means of political recruitment; and iv) the party as a means

conflict regulator.

The four functions, if ideally utilized, would be able to synergize

as one plot with the general election in the filling of political posts;

which would certainly result in choices as well as the appropriate political policies

with the aspirations/will of the people. To run all four functions of the political party

at a maximum/ideal, according to the Court, a condition that

provides space for the freedom to establish or disband the party

politics;

[3.15] A draw that freedom in a state of law of course

must be framed in a law for guarantee, between

another, commonplace within the law [vide Article 27 paragraph (1) UUD 1945] as well as

independence unions and assembly [vide of Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution]. Nevertheless,

according to the Court, as also affirmed by the 1945 Constitution, freedom, good

as a concept or action, is not without limit. Freedom is

paradoxical, while being released indefinitely/destroys

the freedom itself. The freedom of some people or groups has always been

likely to be limited solely in respect of and safeguarding

the freedom of some people or other groups [vide Article 28J paragraph (2) UUD

1945].

[3.16] Draw that according to the Court of all political parties established

in Indonesia it is intended to contest elections and place the deputy-

his deputy in the House, Provincial DPRD, and the District/City DPRD. Limited fact

the number of seats in the representative institution would limit the political party that could

place its deputies. These circumstances ultimately made

the aspiration of aspiration, which is proportional to the number of political parties, cannot

be represented entirely, because the fact that there are only a few political parties that

can place his deputy in the representative institution. As such, the thing

88

Which should be noticed is his small voter support to the political party

certain likely preclude the representation of the voters concerned at

DPR and in the DPRD. Based on that consideration, according to the Court,

the politics of law with regard to the restrictions of political parties is a weness

due to the large number of political parties that do not effectively get the support

from society, so that the political party cannot place his deputy in

the representative institution is reasonable if the political party concerned should

combine with another party that is trunchly/in line with him;

[3.17] Draw that in limiting the number of political parties, especially those

will follow the general election, the legislation does not perform

restrictions by setting the number of political parties as Election participants,

but, among other things by determining the administrative terms as

set in Section 8 of the Act 8/2012. Not the cancellation of the number of political parties as

Election participants who will follow the general election are the embodiment of

the intent of forming legislation in accommodating citizens ' freedom

for unions and assembly, while demonstrating that all citizens

have the same right to establish or join a political party

certain, of course after meeting the terms in accordance with the rules

applicable laws. On the basis of such notions, according to

the Court, the act of forming legislation restricting the number of parties

the politics of the election participants by without calling the party number of the Election participants

is the right policy choice and does not contradicts the 1945 Constitution because

such restrictions are not defined by law-forming but

determined alone by the people who have the freedom to determine its options

naturally.

Testing of constitutionality of Article 8 paragraph (1) Act 8/2012

[3.18] Draw that in laws in Indonesia,

The court inventorizes two stages for the political party to be able to

following the general election, namely the stage of the establishment of a political party and stage

participation of the political party in the general election. Phase of creation or

89

The formation of a political party is governed by Law No. 2 of 2008

about the Political Party as amended by Law No. 2

In 2011 on Change of the Act No. 2 of 2008 on

The Political Party. The registration stage as a general election participant is set up with

Act Number 8 of the Year 2012 about the Board Member Elections

People's Representative, Regional Representative Council, and the People's Representative Council

Regions. Of the two Acts governing the stage, according to

the Court, there is the will of forming the Act to do

the simplification of political parties. In addition, the simplification of political parties is done

by determining the fulfillment of threshold for votes (parliamentary threshold or PT) in the previous general election as a requirement that

is met by an old political party to contest the elections [vide Article 8 paragraph

(1) Act 8/2012] and determine that an old political party that does not meet

threshold the acquisition of such votes as well as a new political party must meet certain requirements to be able to be a participant of the general election [vide Article 8 paragraph (2) Act 8/2012].

The provisions of Section 8 paragraph (1) Act 8/2012, according to the Court, do not meet the principle

justice for the political party long because at the time of verification to be a participant

General Election of 2009, all administration requirements are already met by

all political parties of the 2009 General Election participants, so it is not appropriate if

the political party that in the 2009 General Election has been declared to meet

requirements, but that next general election is required to qualify

threshold of voting acquisition, or if the political party concerned not to meet

threshold, required meeting different requirements with the political party

Election participant of the Year 2009. Such provisions, according to

the Court, do not meet the principle of justice for enacting the terms

in contrast to parties following a similar contestation;

[3.19] A draw that based on such consideration is above, according to

the Court, imposed on the threshold of voting acquisition in the General Election

The 2009 cannot be as the sole provision of the terms

or the criteria in the participation of the old political party as a participant of the General Election

90

Year 2014. Due to the provisions of the terms or criteria in Law 10/2008

in contrast to the provisions of the terms or criteria of the Act 8/2012 which

became the basis for the 2014 General Election. As such,

even though the petitioners only ask for the release of the phrase "which meets

threshold the majority of the national legal votes" that is

in Section 8 of the paragraph (1) of the Act of 2012, but according to the Court of injustice

it is contained in the entirety of Article 8 of the paragraph (1) Act 8/2012. Injustice also

contained in the Description of Article 8 of the paragraph (1) Act 8/2012. This last thing

is based on considerations that there is no explanation of a section that

can stand on its own, so that the explanation of Article 8 of the paragraph (1) of Act 8/2012 should

follow the verdict regarding the article summarised;

Testing of the constitutionality Section 8 paragraph (2) Act 8/2012

[3.20] Draw, Section 8 of the Act (2) The Act of 8/2012 determines that the political party

that does not meet the threshold of votes cast at the general election

previously and the new political party to be a general election participant must

meet Certain requirements. After laying down Article 8 of the Act

Number 10 of 2008 with Article 8 of the Act 8/2012 on the terms of the political party

being a general election participant, the Court found a legal fact regarding

the difference in terms of the following terms:

Article 8 Act 10/2008

" (1) The political party can be an Election Participant after meeting the requirements: a. the status of the legal entity in accordance with the Act on Party

Politics; b. Two-thirds of the total number of provinces; c. has a two-thirds majority (two-thirds) of county/city in

the province is concerned; d. Includes at least 30% (thirty perhundred)

representation of women on the business of the central political party; e. has a member of at least 1,000 (thousand) persons or 1/1,000

(one thousand) of the number of Population on any political party affairs as referred to in the letter b and the letter c as evidenced by the ownership of the member card;

f. has an office fixed for business as in b and c; and

g. submitted the name and image of the political party to the KPU.

91

(2) The Political Party of the Election Participant in the previous election may be an Election Participant in the next election. "

Article 8 8/2012

" (1) The Political Party of Elections in the last election to meet the voting threshold of the number of valid votes nationally is designated as the Political Party of the Election Participant in the next election.

(2) The political party that does not meet the threshold of votes in previous elections or a new political party may become an Election Participant after meeting the requirements: a. the status of the legal entity in accordance with the Act on Party

Politics; b. have affairs across the province; c. has a management of 75% (seventy-five percent) of the amount

districts/cities in the province are concerned; d. has a management of 50% (fifty percent) of the number of subdistricts in

the district/city is concerned; e. Includes at least 30% (thirty percent) of representation

females on the business of the central political party; f. has a member of at least 1,000 (thousand) persons or 1/1,000

(one thousand) of the number of Population on political party affairs as indicated on the letter c as evidenced by the ownership of the member card;

g. have a fixed office for management on the central, provincial, and county/city level until the last stage of the Election;

h. submitted the name, emblem, and image of the political party to the KPU; and

i. submitted the election number of the Election Campaign fund on behalf of the political party to the KPU. "

Of such counter, which is very prominent is the legal fact of the matter

that the conditions that must be met by political parties to contest the general election

the 2009 legislature turned out to be different from the requirements for the general election

the 2014 legislature. The term for the political party's

in 2014 was much heavier than the requirement that it should be

to be met by a new political party in the 2009 legislative elections. With

it is unfair if a political party that has qualified to be a participant

a general election in 2009 does not need to be verified again to be able to follow

a general election in 2014 as a new political party, while the party

politics that did not meet PT should follow the verification with the more

terms of weight. PT from the beginning was not intended as one of the terms to be

92

Next Election participant [vide Article 1 of number 27, Article 8 clause (2), and Section 202

paragraph (1) Act 10/2008], but is the threshold for a party poll of participants

The election to seat its members in the House;

[3.21] A draw that the Court can understand the intent of forming

The Act to make a simplification of the number of political parties, but

simplification cannot be done by enacting the terms that

diverting to each of the political parties. The simplification of political parties can

be done by determining certain administrative terms to follow

a general election, but such terms must be in effect equal to

all political parties that would be general election participants without exception.

Give different terms to participants of a contestation (general election

the same is the same treatment or treatment

differently (unequal treatment) in conflict with Article 27 of the paragraph (1) as well as the Article

28D paragraph (2) and the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, according to the Court, against

all political parties must apply the same requirements for one contestation

the same political or general election, which is the 2014 General Election;

[3.22] A draw that the petitioners, regarding Article 8 of the paragraph (2) Act 8/2012,

only plead for the release of the phrase "The political party that does not meet the threshold

limits the electoral vote on previous elections or" but for justice and

the equality of the position before the law, according to the Court of appeals

The applicant may be granted by accommodating the interests or

the existence of a new political party that would follow the legislative elections of the year

2014;

That eliminating the different treatment in the general election had a meaning,

the political party that did not meet the electoral vote threshold at the election

the general previously should not be treated differently from the political party

which could meet the voting threshold requirement at the previous

elections. Based on principles of equality in the law and

governments, new political parties should not be treated differently

with the old political party (which had followed the 2009 General Election),

93

or if a political party is subject to certain terms, the other political party also

must be subject to the same terms.

To achieve the rights equality of each political party there are two solutions that

can be reached, first, equating the electoral membership requirement between

the electoral political party of the 2009 election and the 2014 Election participants ' political party,

or second, requiring the entire political party to follow the 2014 Elections

with the new requirements defined in the a quo Act. In terms of

this, for the sake of fair legal certainty, the Court determined that to achieve

equal and fair treatment of all the political parties Election participants of 2014

must follow the verification. With passion in line with the intent

forming legislation, for the sake of political party simplification, according to the Court,

the terms of being a general election participant set in Article 8 of the paragraph (2) Act

8/2012 must be applied to all political parties that would follow

The General Election of the Year of 2014 without exception;

[3.23] Weighed That Based On Such Consideration, although the

Applicant only implores the removal of the phrase "The political party

does not meet the threshold of votes in the previous elections or"

in Article 8 of the paragraph (2) of the Act of 2012, but according to the Court, in order to meet

rationality of equality and justice, it should be abolished

the phrase"that does not meet the threshold of votes in the previous elections

or the new political party" in Article 8 of the paragraph (2) of the Act of 8/2012. Accordingly, according to

The Court, Article 8 of the paragraph (2) Act 8/2012 is further to:

(2) The political party can be an Election Participant after meeting the requirements:

a. the status of the legal entity in accordance with the Act on the Political Party;

b. have affairs across the province;

c. has a management of 75% (seventy-five percent) of the number of counties/cities

in the province concerned;

d. have a maximum of 50% (fifty percent) of subdistricts

the county/city is concerned;

e. Including at least 30% (thirty percent) of representation

women on the business of the central political party;

94

f. have members of at least 1,000 (one thousand) people or 1/1,000 (one

perthousand) of the number of Population on political party affairs

as in the case of c as evidenced by the entitlement

card member card;

g. have a fixed office for management on the central, provincial,

and county/city level until the last stage of the Election;

h. submitted the name, emblem, and image of the political party to the KPU; and

i. submitted the Election Campaign fund number of the Election Campaign on behalf of the political party

to the KPU;

Testing of the constitutionality of Article 208 Act 8/2012

[3.24] Stating that before considering the subject of the application

The applicant regarding Article 208 of the Act 8/2012, the Court sees the need to affirm

the subject of the Court's deliberations in the Decision of Case Number 22-

24 /PUU-VI/2008 is dated December 23, 2008, as follows:

"In the life of each country that states itself as a law state Democratic and democratic states under the law, there will always be an attractive attraction between two equally fundamental interests, i.e. interests to form laws (laws) to ensure and ensure legal order in society, and to protect public (public) interests and interests to preserve individual liberty (individual liberty) as an inherent element;

Consequences The democratic legal state and the democratic state under the law, as affirmed by Article 1 of the paragraph (2) and the paragraph (3) The Constitution of 1945, not only means that the process of establishing law and its material (in casu laws) must heed the principles of democracy, but it also means that democratic practices must be subject to the principles of the state of law (rechtsstaat, rule of law) that place the Constitution of 1945 as supreme law. Therefore, the law, both the process of its formation and its materials, can be tested against the basic laws as the highest law;

The Court's authority, to prosecute and severance the application of legislation against the Constitution of 1945, as affirmed by Article 24C of the paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, contains a constitutional mandate to the Court to oversee the constitution. The guardian of the constitution in this relationship, in question, is that the Court should ensure there is no law in violation of the constitutional right of citizens solely for the reason for creating a legal order. However, on the other hand, the Court should also ensure that there is no circumstances under which grounds of protecting the constitutional right of citizens rule out the interests of society;

95

That therefore, all parties, more to the Court, must be established that any law is constitutional (principle of constitutionality) until proven by the judicial process before the Court that the law is unconstitutional";

Related matter a quo which in its poise is concerned about the threshold

votes for votes for the political parties of the general election, the Court needs to refer

the legal considerations of the Court in the Governing Law Number 3/PUU-VII/2009

dated February 13, 2009, which states as follows:

" a. That since the 1999 Election and continued with the 2004 General Election, the Act of Act No. 3 of 1999 on the General Election (subsequently called Act 3/1999) and Invite-Invite Number 12 Year 2003 on the Election of the Members of the People's Representative Council, the Regional Representative Council, and the Regional People's Representative Council (subsequently called the Act 12/2003) have implemented a policy threshold of the acquisition of seats or votes for the Parpol Election Participant to be able to follow the next Election in Indonesia commonly known as the "Electoral." Threshold " (abbreviated ET). Through the policy ET was expected to create a simple party system as desired by Law No. 2 of 1999, which was replaced by Law No. 31 of 2002 on the Political Party. The results of that policy, in the 1999 elections only six Parpol which met ET and in the 2004 Elections were only seven Parpol which met ET, whereas for the Parpol-Parpol that did not meet ET to be able to follow the next Election should join the other Parpol that met ET or did not meet ET in order to meet ET in accordance with the provisions set up in Law 12/2003. While the number of Parpol has remained much as a result of the establishment of the new Parpol-parpol or the old Parpol metamorphosed into the new Parpol, however, as a result of the policy of ET in Act 3/1999 the number of Parpol Act 2004 decreased 50% from 48 Parpol in the 1999 elections to 24 Parpol in the 2004 election, while the number of Parpol the seats in the House in the 1999 elections was 16 Parpol and in the 2004 election amounted to 21 Parpol;

b. Against ET's policy, the Court once cut off the application of the ET policy test listed in Article 9 of the paragraph (1) Act 12/2003 which was filed by 13 Parpol participants of the 2004 election that did not meet ET (part of the Parpol had also applied in Perkara Number 3/PUU-VII/2009) with similar arguments and submitted an expert who proposed that ET be replaced by PT. The Court's ruling states, the plea is rejected by consideration, among others, that the ET policy is not discriminatory because it applies to all Parpol, which is the policy of the legal policy mandated by Article 22E of the paragraph (6) of the highly open 1945 Constitution, i.e. "Further provisions about the general election are set up with the invite-invite", so that according to MK, both the policy of ET and PT are equal to its constitutionality (vide Putermination Number 16 /PUU-V/2007 dated 23 October 2007);

96

c. That ET policy was held in Law 3/1999 and Act 12/2003 then by Law 10/2008 replaced by a new policy known as the "Parliamentary Threshold" (PT) listed in Article 202 paragraph (1) of Law 10/2008 which reads, "The Political Party of Elections must meet the threshold of the vote of at least 2.5% (two five-a-one-hundred) of the number of nationally valid votes to be included in the determination of the House seat acquisition." Through the policy of this PT, it appears that the establishment of the Law (DPR and Government) intends to create a simple party system through a reduction in the number of Parpol that can place his deputy in the House, changed from the previous way with the ET policy which intends to reduce the number of Election participants; ...

... The provisions of Article 22E of the Constitution of 1945 indicate that the Constitution for the Constitution of the Election is: a) Elections are conducted periodically every five years; b) (b) is a direct, public, free, secret, fair, and fair election; c) The goal of elections to elect a member of the House, DPD, DPRD, President and Vice President; d) Election participants to elect members of the House and DPRD are political parties, whereas Election participants to elect members of the DPD are individuals; and e) Election organizers are a national, fixed, and independent electoral commission. Thus, the rest provisions pertaining to the Election, for example, the Election system, the Election Area, the terms for the Election, the voting rights, and so on, by the Constitution of 1945 are delegated to the Act to govern it freely as the legal policy of the Act, already goods of course as long as not to uphold the principles contained in the Constitution of 1945, such as the principle of the sovereignty of the people, the principle of equality, the principle of justice, and the principle of non-discrimination; ... "

In that Number 3/PUU-VII/2009 Decree, the applicant postures

as it is in paragraph [3.17] points c:

"... Article 202 (1) of the Act of 10/2008 violates the principle of equality in law and governance listed in Article 27 of the paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, because according to the applicant there is a different treatment for the candidate of the House of Representatives subjected to the policy of PT for Parpol to place his deputy in the House, while the provision is not enforced for the determination of the seat of the provincial DPRD and the district's DPRD/city. Against the petitioners, the Court argued that the policy was appropriate, since the position of the DPRD in the state system was in contrast to the national legislature and held the power to form the Act [Article 20 clause (1) of the Constitution of 1945], as well as being a counterweight to the President in the checks and balances, after which the power of the DPRD as part of the local government could still be controlled by the Government (the center). In this case, the Court also agrees with the House, Government, and expert arguments of the Government, that the provisions of the PT that apply only to the determination of the House seat and do not apply to the determination of the seat of the DPRD, not a discriminatory policy, but rather a proportional policy;

97

... According to the Court, the policy of PT in Article 202 (1) Act 10/2008 does not ignore the principles of human rights contained in Article 28D (1) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, because each person, every citizen, and every Parpol Election Participant is treated equally and gets the same opportunity through a democratic competition in the Election. Chances are that there are some lucky and some unlucky in a competition called Elections, but the odds and opportunities remain the same;

... The Court has argued, the provisions of Article 202 (1) of Act 10/2008 have absolutely no discriminatory nature and elements, because in addition to being objectively applicable to all Parpol Election participants and all members of the House of Representatives of the Parpol Election Participant, without exception, there are also no factors of racial, religious, gender, social status, and others as Act No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);

[3.19] Interbalance that it is thus able to It is concluded that the legislature can determine the threshold as legal policy for the existence of the Political Party both in the form of both ET and PT. Policies such as these are allowed by the constitution as political simplification of the party because in the nature of the Act on the Party of Parties or the related Political Act is indeed intended to make the constitutional restrictions justified by the constitution. About how much the threshold number is to be the authority of the Act to determine without being confused by the Court as long as it does not conflict with the political rights, the sovereignty of the people, and the rationality. Similarly, according to the Court, the provisions of the existence of the PT as set in Article 202 (1) Act 10/2008 did not violate the constitution because the provisions of the Act of the quo had given the opportunity for each citizen to form a political party but were simultaneously selected and restricted and restricted to the terms of the PT to be able to have a representative in the House. Wherever in the world the constitution has always authorized the law to determine the limitations in the Act for the implementation of the political rights of the people;

[3.20] It draws that although the Court argues the policy of PT listed in Article 202 of the paragraph (1) Act 10/2008 is equally constitutionally equivalent to the policy of ETs listed in Act 3/1999 and Act 12/2003, but the Court of Justice is inconsistent with its Election-related policies and is impressed to always experiment and have not yet had a design. which is clear about what a simple party system is about to create, so that any leading up to the Election is always followed by the establishment of a new law in politics, the Act regarding the Political Party, the Act on Elections, and the Law on the MPR, the DPR, the DPD, and the DPRD;"

Therefore, according to the Court, the legal considerations in the Decree No. 22-

24 /PUU-VI/2008, dated December 23, 2008, and the Number 3/PUU-

VII/2009, dated February 13, 2009, as quoted above, mutatis mutandis

applies also to legal considerations in the case of a quo, i.e. testing

98

constitutionality of Article 208 of the Act 8/2012 regarding the treatment of PT 3.5% (three commas

five percent) of the number of valid votes nationally to be included in the determination

the acquisition of House seats, provincial DPRD, and district DPRD/city, which

its legal consequences would eliminate the non-achieving political party vote

PT 3.5% at the national level. Thus the political party that is not

reaches PT 3.5% at the national level does not have a seat on the provincial DPRD

and the county's DPRD/kota;

[3.25] It is balanced that, according to the Court, the provisions of Article 208 Act 8/2012

and its Explanation Aim for the simplification of the party's natural nature.

Nevertheless, from the point of substance, those provisions did not accommodate

the spirit of unity in diversity. Such provisions could potentially

block political aspirations at the regional level, whereas there is a possibility

a political party that does not reach PT nationally so that it does not

get a seat in the House, but in areas, either at the provincial level or

district/city, the political party gains a significant vote that

resulted in a seat at the representative institutions of each region

. Even so extreme possible the existence of a political party that

national does not meet PT 3.5%, but absolute wins in certain areas.

thus would lead to a prospective member of the DPRD who would eventually sit in the DPRD

not a candidate for the DPRD that should be expected to be in the receiving

vote, or in other words, a candidate for the DPRD ultimately

a member of the DPRD does not represent the voting vote in the area. Politics

the law as defined in Article 208 of the Act 8/2012 and its Explanation

it contradices the pride and pecurities of the political aspirations that

varies in every area;

[3.25.1] According to the Court, the nationally enforced PT-enforcement of the loss of political party seats does not have seats in the House

but the political party is concerned with the provision of voter turnout in

the area and making those seats the actual political party.

does not meet the voter turnout but has a seat in the House, instead

contrary to the sovereignty of the people, the political right, and the rationality, so

99

contrary to the purpose of the general election itself is to select the representative

the people from the central level up to the area;

[3.25.2] The court also assessed if PT 3.5% was enforced, each 3.5% for the DPR, the provincial DPRD, and the DPRD district/city, could

give rise to the possibility of not a single Election participant in a

area (province or district/city) that meets PT 3.5% so that there is no

any member of the political party can occupy the seat of the DPRD. It is possible

if it is assumed that the political party of the Election participants number 30 political parties and

the votes are divided equally so that the maximum of each election participant's political party is

achieving a maximum of 3.3% of the vote. In addition, there is also a possibility

there is only one political party that meets PT 3.5% so that only

one political party occupying all seats in the DPRD or at least

many seats are unfilled. It is contrary to the constitutional provision

that intends the Election to elect a member of the House and the DPRD, which turns out

not achieved because the seat is not divided, or there will be only one party

the politics that sits in the DPRD is thus not in line with the constitution;

[3.26] Draw that based on such consideration above, according to

the Court, the applicant's application along regarding the phrase "DPRD Province, and

DPRD district/city" in Article 208 of the Act 8/2012 justified law. As such,

the provisions of PT 3.5% apply only to the House seat and have no legal effect

against the determination/tally of the political party seats in the provincial legislature and

in the DPRD district/kota;

The constitutionality of articles, verses, or phrases in the section and/or the terms of the Act 8/2012 relating to the section and/or the words in the section and/or the verse-honed paragraph

[3.27] A draw that the ruling regarding Article 8 of the paragraph (1) Act 8/2012 and

The explanation of Article 8 of the paragraph (1) Act 8/2012 has consequences to the provisions-

provisions in the section and paragraph of Act 8/2012 that refer to the provisions

Article 8 paragraph (1) a quo. While not expressly moveed by the petitioners

to be tested, but after lecturing the 8/2012 Act, the Court found the facts

100

the law that Section 17 of the paragraph (1) of the Act 8/2012 is closely related (referencing) to the provisions

Section 8 of the paragraph (1) of the Act 8/2012 which is required to be materially tested by the

Applicant.

So did, the phrase "Provincial DPRD, and DPRD district/city" in Article 208 of the Act

8/2012, according to the Court, closely related to the same phrase in Section 209

paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Act 8/2012, so that the ruling against Section 208 Act 8/2012

as well as merta brought the following laws against Section 209 of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act

8/2012 and its Confirmation;

[3.28] Draw that in the presence of the rulings regarding the provisions of the section

in the Act 8/2012, it is mainly related to the provisions regarding party verification

politics, then everything that is legally enfororable with the process

hosting the 2014 legislative elections should be readjusted

by not changing the voting schedule;

[3.29] Draw that based on such considerations in

up, according to the Court of Applicants ' s request regarding testing

the constitutionality of Article 8 paragraph (1), Section 8 of the paragraph (2), and Article 208 of the Act 8/2012, or

a portion of the phrase from the article or verse referred to, the legal reason for the part;

4. KONKLUSI

Based on the assessment of the facts and laws as outlined in the

top, the Court concluded:

[4.1] The court of competent court is prosecuting a quo;

[4.2] The petitioners have a legal standing (legal standing) for

applying for a quo;

[4.3] Pleading for legal reasons for some.

Based on the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia Year

1945, Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court

101

as amended by Act No. 8 of 2011 on

Changes to the Law No. 24 Year 2003 on the Court

Constitution (State Gazette 2011 Indonesia Number 70, Additional

sheet State of Indonesia Number 5226), And Act No. 48

Year 2009 Of The Power Of Justice (sheet State Of The Republic Of Indonesia

In 2009 Number 157, Additional Sheet Country Republic Indonesia Number

5076);

5. AMAR VERDICT

PROSECUTING,

STATES:

1. Grant the Applicant for a portion;

1.1. Article 8 paragraph (1) and Explanation of Section 8 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 8

of 2012 on the General Election of the Members of the People's Representative Council,

Regional Representative Council, and the Regional People's Representative Council (Sheet

state of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 Number 117 additional leaves

Indonesia reputed No. 5316) in opposition to the 1945 Constitution;

1.2. Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Law No. 8 of 2012 on Election

General Representative of the People's Representative Council, Regional Representative Council, and

Council of the Regional People's Representative Council (Indonesian Republic of State

2012 Number 117 Additional Reputed Country Sheet Indonesia Number

5316) throughout the phrase "that does not meet the voting threshold

at previous elections or new political parties"and explanation of Article 8 of the paragraph

(2) Act No. 8 of 2012 on Member Elections

House of Representatives, House of Representatives, and House of Representatives

Regional People (Indonesian Republic of Indonesia Year 2012 Number 117

Additional Terms of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5316) throughout the phrase

"the new political party " is a political party that is not

has been in the Election" contrary to the 1945 Constitution;

1.3. Article 17 of the paragraph (1) and the Explanation of Article 17 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 8

of the Year 2012 of the General Election of the Members of the People's Representative Council,

102

Regional Representative Council, and Regional People's Representative Council (Sheet

State of the Republic of Indonesia of 2012 Number 117 Additional Sheet

Indonesia reputed state No. 5316) contradictory to the 1945 Constitution;

1.4. Article 208 of the Law No. 8 of 2012 on Elections

Member of the People's Representative Council, Regional Representative Council, and the Board

Regional People's Representative of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012

number 117 additional leaves of the Republic of Indonesia reputed Number 5316)

throughout the phrase "DPRD provincial, and DPRD district/city" contradictory

with Constitution of 1945;

1.5. Section 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act No. 8 of 2012 concerning

General Elections of the People's Representative Council, House of Representatives

Regions, and the Regional People's Representative Council (Republican Gazette

Indonesia Year 2012 Number 117 Additional State of reputed State

Indonesia Number 5316) throughout the phrase "DPRD provincial, and DPRD

county/city" in conflict with the 1945 Constitution;

1.6. Article 8 paragraph (1) and Explanation of Section 8 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 8

of 2012 on the General Election of the Members of the People's Representative Council,

Regional Representative Council, and the Regional People's Representative Council (Sheet

state of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 Number 117 additional leaves

reputed state Indonesia No. 5316) did not have legal powers

binding;

1.7. Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Law No. 8 of 2012 on Election

General Representative of the People's Representative Council, Regional Representative Council, and

Council of the Regional People's Representative Council (Indonesian Republic of State

2012 Number 117 Additional Reputed Country Sheet Indonesia Number

5316) throughout the phrase "which does not meet the voting threshold

at previous elections or new political parties" and explanation of Article 8 of the paragraph

(2) Act No. 8 of 2012 regarding Member General Elections

House of Representatives, House of Representatives, and House of Representatives

People of the Regions (Indonesian Republic of Indonesia 2012 No. 117

Additional Leaf State of Indonesia No. 5316) throughout the phrase

103

"" new political party "is a political party that has not been

never following the Election" has no binding legal force;

1.8. Article 17 paragraph (1) and Explanation of Article 17 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 8

In 2012 about the General Election of the People's Representative Council,

Regional Representative Council, and the Regional People's Representative Council (Sheet

state of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 Number 117 additional leaves

Indonesia reputed state No. 5316) did not have the legal power

binding;

1.9. Article 208 of the Law No. 8 of 2012 on Elections

Member of the People's Representative Council, Regional Representative Council, and the Board

Regional People's Representative of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012

number 117 additional 15-member State of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5316)

throughout the phrase "DPRD provincial, and DPRD district/city" did not have

binding legal force;

1.10. Section 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act No. 8 of 2012 concerning

General Elections of the People's Representative Council, House of Representatives

Regions, and the Regional People's Representative Council (Republican Gazette

Indonesia of 2012 Number 117 Additional State Sheet)

Indonesia Number 5316) throughout the phrase "DPRD provincial, and DPRD

county/city" has no binding legal force;

2. Reject the invocation of the Applicant for other than and the rest;

3. Ordering the loading of this ruling in the News of the Republic of Indonesia

as it should be;

It was decided in a Meeting of Judges by eight

The Judge of the Constitution, the Moh. Mahfud MD., as Chairperson of the Member, Achmad

Sodiki, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Maria Farida Indrati, M. Akil Mochtar, Muhammad Alim,

Anwar Usman, and Hamdan Zoelva, respectively, at on Wednesday, the fifteenth day, in August, the year two thousand twelve, and said in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court open to the public at Wednesday, twenty-nine, August, year two thousand twelve,

104

by the eight Judges of the Constitution, that is Moh. Mahfud MD., as the Chairman of the Union

Member, Achmad Sodiki, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Maria Farida Indrati, M. Akil Mochtar,

Muhammad Alim, Anwar Usman, and Hamdan Zoelva, respectively as

Members, assisted by Mardian Wibowo as Penitera Panitera, as well as

attended by the Applicant, Government or representing, and the Council

The People's Representative or the representative.

CHAIRMAN,

ttd.

Moh. -Mahfud MD.

MEMBERS,

ttd. td

Achmad Sodiki

ttd.

Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi

ttd.

Maria Farida Indrati

ttd.

M. Akil Mochtar

ttd.

Muhammad Alim

ttd.

Anwar Usman

ttd.

Hamdan Zoelva

6. DIFFERENT OPINIONS (DISSENTING OPINION)

Against this Court of Justice, specifically for legal considerations

against Article 208 of the Act of 8/2012, The Judge of the Constitution M. Akil Mochtar has a different opinion (dissenting opinion), as follows:

105

[6.1] weighed that the application of the parliamentary threshold in the system

The Indonesian elections are not in line with the goal of the simplification of the party system

in order to effectiveness the presidential system through institutional reinforcement

parliament. In addition, the application of the parliamentary threshold model resulted in

the slowing of the aspiration channels of minority groups in the building system

the democratic Indonesia statehood and guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. On the basis

here is, I expressed a different opinion.

That in each Election system there must be a limit (threshold) that

results in a person ' s interest in occupying public office. Threshold

This limit is the natural nature of the Electoral System (natural threshold).

That Act 8/2012 that uses an open proportional system gives

the award to the popular vote publicly, freely selectest and determining

legislative members. The system also eliminates the act of waiver over

free of the popular vote and guarantee the principle of representation

which is based on awards for minority groups within the

of the compound Indonesian society.

[6.2] Draw that Decree No. 22-24/PUU-VI/2008

dated 23 December 2008 in its legal consideration has been expressly

stating that it is determined to be satisfied with the principle of people's sovereignty and the principle of representation

with consideration it reads, "... because it is the choice of candidate

the legislature should not shift from the decision of the sovereign to the decision

The political party administrator as well as the constitutional mandate is in

Opening of the Constitution of the Constitution of 1945".

That threshold (parliamentary threshold) of at least 3.5% (three

half per cent) of the total number of votes as set in Section 208

Act 8/2012, the forming of the Act requires to consider the things

with respect to the parliamentary threshold. In comparison, the Council of Parliament

(Parliamentary Assembly) Europe, for example, in Resolution No. 1547 which

issued in 2007 ruled that the designation threshold (threshold)

above 3% (three percent) did not have a strong legal foundation in a