Test The Material Constitutional Court Number 52/puu-X/2012 Year 2012

Original Language Title: Uji Materi Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012 Tahun 2012

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: http://peraturan.go.id/inc/view/11e45e5d3ef666688dcc303034353330.html

Microsoft Word-52 PUU 2012-HAS BEEN READ 29-8-2011 VERDICT Number 52/PUU-X/2012 for the SAKE of FAIRNESS UPON the DIVINITY of the ONE TRUE GOD of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT of the REPUBLIC of INDONESIA [1.1] who adjudicate matters the Constitution on the first and last levels, dropping a verdict in the case of application for Testing the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 , submitted by: [1.2] 1. The ulema National Awakening Party (PKNU), located at Jalan Kramat VI number 8, Central Jakarta, represented by the Chairman of the Board Tanfidz DPP PKNU Drs. h. Choirul Anam and the General Secretary of Tohadi, S.H., M.Si. 2. Crescent Star Party (PBB), located at the highway Sunday market Km 18 Number 1B, South Jakarta, represented by Chairman Dr. h. P. Kaban, S.E., M.Si. and the Secretary General of the BM. Wibowo, S.E., MM. 3. Indonesia justice and Unity Party (PKPI), located at Jalan Diponegoro Number 63, Menteng, Central Jakarta, represented by the Chairman of the National Leadership Council PKPI Dr. (HC) h. Sutiyoso, sh. and Secretary General of DRS. Lukman f. Mokoginta, M.Si. 4. the party Concerned work of Nations (PKPB), located on the street Cimandiri number 30 Cikini, Menteng, Jakarta, represented by the Chairman of the Central Board PKPB General TNI (Ret) r. Hartono and Secretary General of the INDONESIAN Marines Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Hartarto. 5. the party of National Unity (VAT), located at Jalan Prof. Dr. Satrio C-4 number 18 of Casablanca, South Jakarta, represented by DPP Chairman Oesman Sapta Dr. VAT and General Secretary of the Ratna Esther L. Tobing, Sh., MH.

2 6. The independence party, in Mampang Prapatan XII number 6, South Jakarta, which is represented by the Chairman of the Independent National Party Leadership Council Hasannudin m. Kholil, s. IP. and Secretary General of Aji Eason, SE., M.Si. 7. The national Populist Fortress Party (PNBK Indonesia) Indonesia, located at Number 50, I Clearing of Jakarta, which is represented by the Chairman of the Central Board PNBK Indonesia Erros Djarot and Secretary General of the Syamsunar. 8. The National Democratic Party (PDK), located at Street number 30 West Pejaten, Kelurahan, Kecamatan Ragunan Sunday market, South Jakarta, represented by the President of the National Board of PDK Ir. Sayuti Asyathri and Secretary General Dr. Kun Abyoto Wardana. 9. Indonesia Unity Party (PSI), located at Jalan Kemang Timur Raya Number 55, Jakarta South, represented by the Acting Chairman of the DPP PSI Drs. h. Mardinsyah and Secretary General of IR. Muchamad Nazir. 10. Party sovereignty, located at North Kingdom Pulomas Road Number 28, Pulomas, East Jakarta, represented by the Chairman of the Council of the leadership of the Center Party's sovereignty Denny m. Cilah, S.H., S.E.., M.Si. and Secretary General Restianrick Bachsjirun, s. Sos. 11. The prosperous Indonesia Party (PIS), located at Jalan Tebet East III number 13, South Jakarta, which is represented by the Chairman of the DPP PIS H. Budiyanto Darmastono, S.E., M.Si. and the Deputy Secretary General m. Butar-Butar Jaya, S.H. 12. The Democratic Unity Party of Indonesia (PKDI), located at Jalan Bango I number 1, Cilandak, Jakarta, represented by the Chairman of the DPP PKDI Maria Anna s., S.H. and General Secretary Rev. Michael Hendry Lumanauw, S.Th. 13. Workers and employers party Indonesia (PPPI), located at Number 44 Jalan Imam Bonjol, Menteng, Central Jakarta, represented by Chairman Daniel Hutapea and General Secretary h. Rudy Prayitno. 14. the prosperous peace party (PDS), located on the road to Lieutenant General. S. Parman Number 6 g, Roundabout Slipi, West Jakarta, which was represented by the Chairman of the General 3 Magit Les Denny Tewu, S.E., West., and Secretary General of Sahat Sinaga. 15. The renewal Democratic Party (PDP), located at Jalan Tebet Barat in the Kingdom Number 29, South Jakarta, which is represented by the Chairman of the national collective (PLH PKN) PDP h. Roy BB Janis, S.H., M.H. and Secretary of the commissioning of the national collective (PLH PKN) PDP KRHT. H. Didi Supriyanto, S.H., M. Hum. 16. the archipelago Republic party, located at Jalan Dewi Sartika Number 113, East Jakarta, represented by the Chairman of the Presidium of the Central Council Presidium PRN Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Syahril, and Secretary of the Presidium of the Center Dr. PRN Drs. Yus Sudarso, S.H., M.H. 17. Youth Party Indonesia (PPI), located at Jalan KH. Abdullah Syafi'ie Number 53C, Casablanca, field Rose, Tebet, South Jakarta, represented by the Chairman of the Central Board of the PPI HM. Effendi Saud, MBA and Secretary General Satrio Purwanto Subroto. In this case each, based on a power of attorney dated 6 April 2012, 16 April 2012, 19 April 2012, and April 25, 2012, authorizes i) Prof. Dr. Yusril Ihza Mahendra., S.H.; II) Jamal Karim, S, h., M.H.; III) Dr. Andi Asrun, m., S.H., M.H.; IV) Agus Dwiwarsono, sh., M.H.; v) Widodo Iswantoro, S.H.; vi) Mansyur Munir, S.H.; VII) of Tohadi, S.H., m. Si.; VIII) Abdurrahman Tardjo, S.H., M.H.; IX) Didi Supriyanto, S.H., m. Hum.; x) Ratna Esther Lumbantobing, S.H., West; XI) Mikael Marut, S.H.; XII Butar Butar Muslim Jaya), S.H., M.H.; XIII) Kamarudin Ismail Umar, S.H.; XIV) Michael Wangge, S.H.; XV) Eliza n. Basyaruddin, S.H., M.H.; XVI) Jeffrey Palijama, S.H.; XVII) Syamsunar, S.H.; XVIII) Ira Zahara Jatim, S.H.; XIX) Yose Rizal, S.H.; and xx) Paschal Da Cunha, S.H., namely advocate and legal consultant, a company based in the Law Office "IHZA & IHZA LAW FIRM" and other advocates, located in Citra Graha Building 10th Floor, Jalan Jenderal Gatot Subroto Kavling 35-36, Jakarta, either singly or together to act for and on behalf of the giver of power; Hereinafter referred to as –-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-– the Applicant; [1.3] Read the petition for the Applicant; Hearing a description of the Applicant;

4 Examine the evidence the Applicant; Hear expert witnesses and the Applicant; Hearing a description of the Government; Hear and read the affidavits of representatives; Read the written conclusions of the Applicant; 2. SIT the MATTER [2.1] considering that the Applicant has filed the petition dated April 16, 2012 is received and registered with the Registrar of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as the clerk of the Court) on 29 may 2012 based on deed of receipt of the Application File Number 189/URPAN.MK/2012 recorded in the Registration Book of things the Constitution with the number 52/PUU-X/2012 on 4 June 2012, and has been improved with a petition dated June 25, 2012 are received at the Registrar of the Court on June 26, 2012 , outlining things as follows: i. the powers of the Constitutional Court i. 1. That Article 24, paragraph (2) of the Constitution states: "the power of justice done by a Supreme Court and judicial bodies that are underneath it in an environment of public justice, environmental justice, environmental justice, environmental justice, and the country by a Constitutional Court". Next Article 24C paragraph (1) States "the Constitutional Court is authorized to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final to examine legislation against the Constitution, severing of disputes the State agencies the Authority those powers granted by the Constitution, severing the dissolution of political parties, and hang up disputes about election results". With regard to this appeal emphasized article 10 paragraph (1) letter a LAW Number 24 year 2003 on the Constitutional Court as amended with law No. 8 year 2011 about changes to the LAW Number 24 year 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court reads: "the Constitutional Court is authorized to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final


5 for: a. testing the laws of the Constitution of the Republic – Indonesia 1945 ... ". Similarly under section 29 subsection (1) a law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 48 in 2009 about the Power of Justice (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia year 2009 Number 157, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5076), reads: "the Constitutional Court is authorized to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final for: a. testing the laws of the Constitution of the Republic – Indonesia 1945 ...". I. 2. That the provisions of article 9 paragraph (1) of the Act No. 12 year 2011 about the formation of the Regulations States, "in terms of legislation alleged to be incompatible with the CONSTITUTION of 1945, done is done by the Constitutional Court"; I.3. That article 8 paragraph (1) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or votes" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or at least Article 208 of the ACT of the election along with the phrase:.. " Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "contrary to Article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28, Section 28C subsection (2), section 28D subsection (1) and paragraph (3) and article 28I paragraph (2) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; I.4. That some provisions of the Constitution as a test upon the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or votes" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or Sha-whether Article 208 of the ACT of the election all phrases : ..“ Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "in full is as follows: article 22E subsection (1) of the Constitution states that;" The general election was carried out in direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years. ";

6 Article 22E paragraph (3) the Constitution states that: "the participants of the general election to choose members of the House of representatives and members of the regional representative Council is the political party"; Article 27 paragraph (1) of the Constitution states that: "all citizens of its position in law and Government and must respect the law and Government with no kecualinya"; Article 28 Constitution states that: "freedom of Association and Assembly, pull out the mind with spoken and written and so on are defined by law"; Article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution states that: "everyone has the right to promote himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country"; Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution states that: "everyone has the right to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law"; Article 28D paragraph (3) of the Constitution states that: "every citizen has the right to obtain equal opportunities in the Government"; " Article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution states that; " Everyone has the right freely over discriminatory treatment on the basis of anything and is entitled to protection against discriminatory treatment "; I. 5. That article 9 paragraph (1) of the Act No. 12 year 2011 about the formation of Legislation (hereinafter: P3 ACT) governs the hierarchical position of that Constitution is higher than the law. Thus, any provision of the Act should not be contrary to the Constitution, so that if there is a provision in the legislation contrary to the Constitution, then that provision can be petitioned to be tested through the testing mechanisms Act to the Court; I. 6 That application testing, the object of this Act is article 8 paragraph (1) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds 7 votes in the previous Election or" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or Sha-whether Article 208 of the ACT of the election all phrases : ..“ Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "against article 1 paragraph (2), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28, Section 28C subsection (2), section 28D subsection (1) and paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; I. 7. therefore That the Constitutional Court is authorized to check, try and break this petition. II. The position of the law (Legal Standing) and The Constitutional interest of Applicant II. 1. That Article 51 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24 of 2003 about the Constitutional Court said that the applicant in testing law is "the party that assumes the rights and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of the Act, namely: a. the individual citizen of Indonesia; b. pesatuan customary law throughout society is alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principle of the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia regulated in legislation; c. a public or private legal entities; or d. the State institutions. II. 2. That further Explanation of article 51 paragraph (1) of the Act a quo, mentioned that the definition of "constitutional rights are rights that are regulated in the Constitution"; II. 3. That as stated in the Constitutional Court Verdict Number 006/PUU-III/2005 juncto Verdict number 11/PUU-V/2007 and subsequent rulings have given understanding and restrictions about what is meant by "loss of constitutional" with the introduction of a norm of law, namely: a. the existence of the applicant's constitutional rights provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945; b. the constitutional rights that are considered by the applicant have been wronged by an act that was tested;

8 c. Constitutional disadvantage Applicants in question are specific (Special) and actual, or potential nature at least according to the reasoning reasonably certain will happen; d. the existence of a causal relationship (causal verband) between the losses and the enactment of legislation that petitioned to be tested; and e. of the possibility that by dikabulkannya the petition then postulated that a constitutional disadvantage will not or no longer occur; II. 4. That based on the above provision, then there are two terms that must be met to be able to act as parties in applying testing legislation, namely the first, those who have qualified as Applicant or legal standing in the case of testing the law. Second, the existence of a constitutional disadvantage Applicants by enactment of a statute. It is evident that; 1. Applicant I is the NATIONAL AWAKENING PARTY (PKNU) SCHOLARS, located at Jalan Kramat VI number 8, Central Jakarta, 10430 was a political party which was established based on Notarial deed dated 2006-10-13 (thirteen October two thousand six) number 33, was later modified with a notary deed dated 12-01-2007 (twelve of January two thousand seven), both of which made number 26 before h. Harjono Moekiran, S.H., notary public in Jakarta , last amended by Notarial deed dated 10-12-2007 (December two thousand seven ten) number 5, made before the Dian Fitriana, S.H., m. Kn., Notary in the town of Bekasi, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of law and human rights Republic Indonesia with Its Letter dated 03-04-2008 (3 April two thousand eight) number m. HH-31. Ah., at 11 in 2008. Stewardship PKNU has received the endorsement of Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-03. AH. 1 in 2011, January 31, 2011 about the Endorsement Changes Statutes/bylaws and the Management Board of the Centre Party national revival period of Solemn Cleric 2010-2015.


9 in this governance Tanfidz Board Chairman of DPP PKNU is Drs. h. Choirul Anam and Secretary General of the Council of Tanfidz the DPP PKNU is Tohadi, S.H., m. Si., 2. Appellant II is the CRESCENT STAR PARTY (PBB), located at the highway Sunday market Number 1B 18 KM South of Jakarta. The UN is a political party which was established based on Notarial deed of 71, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter with you. UM. 06.08.77. Stewardship the UN has received the endorsement of Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-05. Ah.. 11 in 2011 In the stewardship of this Chairman is Dr. h. M.S. KABAN, S.E., M.Si. and the General Secretary is BM. ANTHONY, S.E., MM., 3. The applicant III is the INDONESIAN JUSTICE and UNITY PARTY (PKPI), located at Jalan Diponegoro Number 63, Menteng, Central Jakarta. PKPI was a political party which was established based on Notarial deed Number 21 on September 19, 2002, made in the presence of the Jambi Anasrul, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia by Decree Number M-05. UM. 06:08 2003 July 17, 2003. Stewardship PKPI has gained endorsement from Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number M.H. H-12. AH year 2010 27 September 2010. In the stewardship of these National Board Chairman PKPI was Dr. (HC) h. Sutiyoso, sh. and Secretary General of the National Board PKPI was Drs. Lukman f. Mokoginta, M.Si. 4. The petitioner IV was FUNCTIONAL PARTY (PKPB) CARES ABOUT the NATION, located in the street Cimandiri number 30 Cikini Menteng, Jakarta 12810. PKPB was 10 political parties that was established based on notary deed no. 9 dated 15 April 2001, made in the presence of Mohamad Riphath Tadjoedin, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia by Decree Number M-09. UM. 06:08 2003 July 17, 2003. In the stewardship of this Central Leadership Council Chairman PKPB was General TNI (Ret) r. Hartono and Secretary General of the Central Board was Maj. Gen. TNI PKPB Marine (Ret.) Hartarto, 5. The applicant is the NATIONAL UNITY PARTY V (VAT), located at Jalan Prof. Dr. Satrio C-4 number 18 of Casablanca, Jakarta Selatan 12940 –. VAT is a political party which was established based on Notarial deed no. 8 dated November 18, 2002, made in the presence of Herlina Pakpahan, sh., Notary in Rangkasbitung, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia Decree Number with URM.UM. 5 -284 2002 December 18, 2002, subsequently amended by deed no. 1 dated May 2, 2008 made before Herlina Pakpahan , Sh., Notary in Jakarta, which has gotten an endorsement from Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia by Decree number: m. HH-57. AH. 11 Year 2008 dated May 23, 2008, later modified in notary deed no. 10 dated 14 October 2010, made in the presence of Herlina Pakpahan, sh., Notary in Jakarta, which has gotten an endorsement from Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decree Number with MHH-15. In 2010, 11.01 AH. on 8 November, 2010 and last modified by deed Number 35 on 29 November 2011 made in the presence of Herlina Pakpahan, sh., Notary in Jakarta, which has gotten an endorsement from Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter with Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-04. 1 Ah. Year 2012 dates January 9, 2012. Management of VAT has received the endorsement of Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as 11 Minister of Justice and human rights of the Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-04. AH. 1 year 2012 dates January 9, 2012. In this stewardship of the DPP Chairman was Dr. VAT Oesman Sapta and Secretary General of the DPP VAT is Ratna Esther l. Tobing, sh., MH., 6. The applicant is an INDEPENDENT PARTY VI, located in Mampang Prapatan XII number 6 – Jakarta Selatan 12790. The INDEPENDENCE PARTY was a political party which was established based on Notarial deed number 16 on 31 January 2003, made in the presence of Umar Saili, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia by Decree Number M-23. UM 06:08 2003. on 6 October 2003. The management of the INDEPENDENT PARTY has received the endorsement of Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-08. 19. Ah. In 2010 on May 11, 2010. In the stewardship of these National Board Chairman of the INDEPENDENCE PARTY is the Hasannudin m. Kholil, s. IP. and the General Secretary of the INDEPENDENT national party leadership Council is Aji Eason, SE., m. Si., 7. The applicant is a NATIONAL PARTY STRONGHOLD VII POPULIST INDONESIA (PNBK), located in the Clearing I Number 50 Jakarta-10210. PNBK INDONESIA is the political party which was established based on Notarial deed no. 12 dated January 9, 2008, made in the presence of MEISSIE PHOLUAN, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia Decree number with the letter m. HH-28. Ah. 2008 11 03 date of April 2008.

12 in the stewardship of this Central Leadership Council Chairman PNBK Erros Djarot and INDONESIA is the General Secretary of the central leadership Council PNBK INDONESIA is Syamsunar. 8. The applicant VIII is the NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDK), located at Street number 30 West Pejaten Village Ragunan Subdistrict in South Jakarta Sunday market – 10210. PDK INDONESIA is the political party which was established based on Notarial deed Number 68 on 23 July 2002, made in the presence of DANIEL p. M, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia by Decree Number M-15. UM 06:08 2003. based upon the Affidavits State Administration Director of Directorate General of common law administration of the AHU Number. 4. AH. -38 management of 11.01 PDK has gained endorsement from Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-08. AH., at 11 in 2012 on March 22, 2012. In the stewardship of these National Board President of the PDK is IR. Sayuti Asyathri and General Secretary of PDK Center Board is Dr. Kun Abyoto Wardana. 9. The applicant IX is the INDONESIAN UNITY PARTY (PSI), located at Jalan Kemang Timur Raya Number 55, South Jakarta. PSI is a political party which was established based on Notarial deed no. 4 dated December 20, 2002, made in the presence of DRS. NURDIN ZARKASYI, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia by Decree Number M-04. 06:08 UM.. In 2003 the date 03 April 2008. Management of PSI has been gaining an endorsement from INDONESIAN Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia as 13 Decree Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH. AH 2010 11. December 27, 2010. In the management of this Common DPP Acting Chairman of PSI is Drs. h. Mardinsyah, and the Secretary General of the DPP'S PSI is IR. Muchamad Nazir. 10. The applicant PARTY sovereignty, X is located at North Kingdom Pulomas Road Number 28, Pulomas, East Jakarta. SOVEREIGNTY PARTY was a political party which was established based on Notarial Deed No. 1 dated October 2, 2006, and the notary deed no. 2 dated October 2, 2006, both of which are made in the presence of ZACHARIAS OMAWELE, sh., Notary in Jakarta, as amended by deed of notary public Number 48 date 24 December 2007 made in the presence of Eva MISDAWATI, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia Decree number with the letter m. HH-02. AH 2010 at 11.29 March 2010. In this Management Board Chairman of the Center PARTY'S SOVEREIGNTY is Denny m. Cilah, SH, SE., M.Si and Secretary General of the Council of the leadership of the Center PARTY'S SOVEREIGNTY is Restianrick Bachsjirun, s. Sos. 11. The applicant XI is the PROSPEROUS INDONESIA PARTY (PIS), located at Jalan Tebet East III number 13, South Jakarta – 12820. The PIS is a political party which was established based on Notarial deed no. 1 dated September 9, 2006 made in Chairunisa Said Selenggang, sh., Notary in Jakarta, as amended by deed no. 9 dated February 9, 2007 created Rusnaldy, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and the last amended by deed no. 1 dated 1 February 2008 made Bambang Sularso, sh., Notary in Jakarta , and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia Decree number with the letter m. HH-39. AH. 11.01 2008 April 3, 2008.


2 management of the PIS has received the endorsement of Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-39. AH. 11.01 2008 April 3, 2008. In the stewardship of this PIS is the DPP Chairman h. Budiyanto Darmastono, S.E., M.Si. and the Secretary General of the DPP PIS is Dr. R.C. Wila Marnixon, Sh. MH.; 12. The applicant PARTY UNITY XII was INDONESIAN DEMOCRACY (PKDI), located at Jalan Bango I number 1, Cilandak, South Jakarta. PKDI was a political party which was established based on Notarial deed no. 2 dated December 20, 2002, made in the presence of Natalia Eviani, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia. Management PKDI has gotten an endorsement from Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-10. AH., at 11 in 2011 June 14, 2011. In this stewardship of the DPP Chairman PKDI was Mary Anna s., SH. and the Secretary General of the DPP'S PKDI is the Rev. Michael Hendry Lumanauw, s. Th., 13. Applicant XIII is INDONESIAN WORKERS and EMPLOYERS PARTY (PPPI), located at Jalan Imam Bonjol 44, Menteng, Central Jakarta. PPPI is a political party which was established based on Notarial deed no. 2 dated January 26, 2005, made in the presence of Dianar w. Napitupulu, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia. PPPI stewardship has received the endorsement of Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-66. AH. 11.01 2008 July 2, 2008. In this stewardship Chair 15 common is Daniel Hutapea and General Secretary was h. Rudy Prayitno. 14. The applicant XIV is the PROSPEROUS PEACE PARTY (PDS), located at Jalan LetJend. S. Parman number 6 g. Roundabout Slipi, West Jakarta, 1148. PDS was a political party which was established based on Notarial deed no. 2 dated October 01, 2001, made in the presence of Elliza Asmawel, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia by Decree Number M-12. UM. 06:08 2003 August 27, 2003. PDS management has gained endorsement from Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-14. A.H. 11.01. Year 2010 02 November 2010. In the stewardship of this Chairman is Magit Les Denny Tewu, SE., West., and the Secretary-General was Sahat Sinaga. 15. The applicant XV is the RENEWAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP), located at Jalan Tebet Barat in the Kingdom Number 29 South Jakarta – 12810. The PDP is a political party which was established based on Notarial deed Number 90 on 20 February 2008 made before Aaron Kamil, S.H., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia Decree number with the letter m. HH-20. Ah., at 11 in 2008. Management of PDP has received the endorsement of Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decision Letter as Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Number m. HH-20. Ah., at 11 in 2008. In this stewardship of Chairman of the national collective (PLH PKN) PDP is h. Roy BB Janis, S.H., M.H. and Secretary of the commissioning of the national collective (PLH PKN) PDP is KRHT. H. Didi Supriyanto, S.H., m. Hum., 16 16. Applicant XVI is the ARCHIPELAGO REPUBLIC PARTY, located at Jalan Dewi Sartika Number 113, East Jakarta. PRN is a political party which was established based on Notarial deed number 08 on 21 May 2007, made in the presence of RETNO REVELATION NINGSIH, sh., Notary in Jakarta, and then gets an endorsement as a body of public law of the Minister of Justice and human rights of Republic of Indonesia Decree number with the letter m. HH-37. 11.01 2008 Ah. April 3, 2008. Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Presidium of the center of the PRN is Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Syahril, and Secretary of the Presidium of the Center is Dr. PRN Drs. Yus Sudarso, Sh., MH. 17. The applicant is INDONESIAN YOUTH PARTY XVII (PPI), located at Jalan KH. Abdullah Syafi'ie Number 53C, Casablanca – Field Rose, Tebet, South Jakarta. The PPI was a political party which was established based on Notarial deed of HERLINA PAKPAHAN, SH, in Jakarta, and got an endorsement from the legal entity from the Minister of law and human rights Republic of Indonesia Decree number with the letter m. HH-19.11.01 in 2011 on 14 June 2011. Board Chairman of the center of the center of the PPI is HM. Effendi Saud, and Secretary of the Central Leadership is Satrio Purwanto. II. 5. That the Applicant in the case a quo is the public law (Evidence PIII-a, III-b, P P III-c; P III-d; P III-e; P III-f; P III-g; P III-h; P III-i; P III-j; P III-k; P III-l; P III-m; P III-n; P III-o; P III-p; P III-q; and P III-r), which was established with the aim to fight for the public interest (public interests advocacy). Therefore the political party as a body of public law is the expression of the freedom of Association and Assembly. As an entity of public law, then the political organization put myself in a position between (intermediate structure), as a bridge linking the interests of the ideal State (state) with the public/citizens (society). European political parties into a society toward change driving organ community superior and immoral. This means the political party as a body of public law into a means of channeling the aspiration and the pursuit of common interests as mandated by the fourth Preamble alenia 1945, so that by itself can represent himself and 17 members to act as a subject of law in the fight for and defend his rights. In addition, the constitutional rights of political parties as public legal entities which are regulated in the Constitution should not be the slightest diciderai by a norm of law degree under the Constitution. In this connection, the Applicant considers that the rights and/or authority konstitusionalnya distinctively harmed by the enactment of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or at least Article 208 of the ACT of the election all phrases : ..“ Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "Election ACT; II. 6. That thus the applicant has qualifications to apply for a quo, as required by article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT the COURT; II. 7. That COURT Verdict Number 27/PUU-VII/2009 in testing formyl second amendment Act Supreme Court, mentioned: "from the practice of the Court (2003-2009), private CITIZENS, especially tax-payer (tax payer; vide Verdict Number 003/PUU-I/2003) a variety of associations and NGOS/NGO which concern against the legislation in the interest of the public, legal entities, local governments, State agencies, and others, by the Court is considered to have legal standing to apply for testing, both the formyl or materii, legislation against the Constitution "; II. 8. That the Applicant is clearly a body of law which also aim to fight for the interests of the general public (public interests advocacy) and therefore the applicant has legal position (legal standing) as the applicant (vide: the ruling of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT the number 002/PUU-I/2003, dated December 21, 2004, pp. 200 and a Verdicts MK Number 27/PUU-VII/2009); II. 9. That the Applicant is the party that suffered losses of potential at least according to constitutional reasoning reasonably certain will suffer losses due to the constitutional enactment of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet a threshold number of votes from acquisition


18 votes valid nationally "and subsection (2) the phrase" all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or "as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or at least Article 208 of the ACT of the election along with the phrase:.." Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "Election ACT; II. 10. That article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the ACT States that: "Elections: (1) political party Electoral Participants at the last election that meets the threshold of gaining votes from the total number of valid votes nationally designated as the political party Electoral Participants at the next election; (2) political party that does not meet the threshold gains the previous Election or vote on a new political party can become the participant of the election after fulfilling the requirements: ... II. 11. That the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and paragraph (2) along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or votes" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or Sha-whether Article 208 of the ACT of the election along with the phrase:.. " Provincial and REGIONAL district/municipality Election LAW "will obviously harm at least potential detriment to the applicant. This is because the set conditions which are very unfair and discriminatory imposed upon the applicant as a election participant political parties at the last election (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of valid votes nationwide tally (the threshold of Parliament or a parliamentary threshold/PT) in the next elections Elections membership (2014), through factual verification requirements by the General Election Commission (ELECTION COMMISSION). On the contrary, it is very unfair and discriminatory only setting the political party Electoral participants at the last election (election 2009) that meet the threshold of valid votes nationwide tally is automatically set as the next Election participants (2014) and without having to go through factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION. The applicant has harmed the rights konstitusionalnya because it mistreated is very unfair and discriminatory, a treatment that is clearly contrary to Article 27 19 subsection (1), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution. II. 12. That with the enactment of the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or votes" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or at least Article 208 of the ACT of the election along with the phrase:.. " Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "Election LAW it can only result in The applicant's sign not in factual verification by the ELECTION COMMISSION. Further losses will be experienced by The Applicant because it will be deterred the rights konstitusionalnya in order to advance himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country, as guaranteed by article 27, paragraph (1) of article 28, article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1) and paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; II. 13. That thus the applicant has legal position (legal standing, legitima persona standi in judicio) to act as the Applicant in the application for testing the legislation a quo. III. Testing the application for Reasons III. 1. That any institutional and whatever has a meaningful position and function in the life of the kenenagaraan order. The existence of organizations of political parties, for example, has its own position and function in organizing and developing a democratic system. In addition, political parties can also be used as a strategic liaison (intermediate structure) in setting the Government's relationship with the citizens, so that both have adequate access to information and the relationship of harmony and balance. In this perspective, then the system passes the party will have an effect on the life of democracy in a country. This condition is achieved when the tradition and culture of free thinking can grow with the lush, because the dynamic of freedom of thought is very influential towards the principle of freedom of Association tumbuh-kembangnya 20 which became a pillar for growth and development of the nature of democracy itself. Thus, the established dissolve the party organization and vice versa is the right of every person, and in this perspective, no one can force pihakpun to establish or dissolve the party organization except by their own. This principle gives the affirmation that the sovereign could not be dismissed arbitrarily by a political party only because of the different streams or opinions to a problem state. By contrast, political parties also do not necessarily have immunity and go around doing activities with various conditions mainly denies being a charge material Constitution. Therefore, the freedom of Association and Assembly, as provided for in Article 28 and article paragraph (3) team of the Constitution have the freedom is not without limits, but pembatasnya is thus the Constitution itself. III. 2. That in the concept of democracy, namely the principle of popular sovereignty embodied that determines the direction of the operations of the Government. The embodiment of the principle of popular sovereignty in the lives of the people's involvement reflected Government intensively in deciding the direction of Government policy. The size of the people's sovereignty can be seen how far the magnitude of role played as well as the folk folk kepentinganan selarasnya with the rategis pubstlik policy. In this perspective then the political parties play a role that is bridging the gap between people's kepentinganan with the public policy of the Government. Therefore, the political party as a political organization put myself in a position between (intermediate structure), as a bridge linking the interests of the ideal State (state) with the public/citizens (society). Political parties should be able to become an organ of locomotion towards community change community superior and immoral. Changes for political parties is sunatullah and should be greeted with a smile, so that the political parties have never stopped to think, move, and work. Develop a modern and rational society is the total transformation efforts in the fundamental changes at both the line of individuals, families, social groups, social institution mapun civic order in its entirety. The 21st to do changes the simultaneous and synergistic in order to arise the interlacing of harmony and mutual influence on desirable changes towards the realization of human resource potential. This means the change is basically a regular social engineering and sustainability (sustainable orderly change). By karen, to eliminate the failure of a community development katatau social engineering as part of development planning, then one of the keys to watch out for is community engagement itself placed not just as a goal of development, but as the perpetrators of the development. This means people should be given access to the existence of the plan development. This community engagement needs to be organised, and didinamisir so that they are able to actualize the various needs and its importance in an idea and the actual action plans and manageable. Community involvement will also give influence on the value of collective responsibility (colective responsibility velue) against any motion changes. Positive attitude (positive thinking) changes, is part of progress itself. Therefore the building as a means to drive the desired changes, then change the attitude of society to be positive against any changes is an important part of the development itself. This means the political party has a function of them is ideal; Political parties as a means of recruitment, namely that the organanisasi of a political party should be able to actively conduct the recruitment of members and built it into a reliable party cadre who has credibility and capabilities as drivers of change in the community. Political parties as a means of political communication or political articulation. This means the political party is a media or a tool (a tool) to convey the aspirations of the interest (interest) and needs (needs) mayarakat/people to the regime of the lead. This is the substance of the Centre's functions as a liaison between people and the Government.


22 political parties as a means of political socialization. This function is more emphasized on aspects of political education to the community about the position, functions, roles, and responsibilities of the community in the life of a country. Political participation is important, so that political legitimacy over public policy can be understood equally by society. Political parties as a means of conflict management. Political parties are required to be capable of resolving conflicts in the media due to the difference of views on the community level. III. 3-the planning and establishment of law should follow the development of cutting-edge science in pemikian, which in essence rejected the ways of the mengotak-compartmentalize, and reduce the problems encountered, but all these problems were viewed as a unified whole (holistic). Mind holisitik and followed by the method of problem-solving/problem analysis with attention to components that are located on a single braid that is intact, it will produce a law yasng realistic but also futuristic. In the perspective of legal understanding holistically, then the law is not understood merely in legal texts, or merely satisfy the interests of a particular group of kepentinga even for a moment, but had to put it in a larger context, namely Indonesia society. Thus, the laws are not seen as an abstract scheme-scheme, but rather as something whole and real. HA this means the law is not only seen as regulatory (rules) but also as an organized human behavior (organic behavior). Therefore, developing the law in the law through the establishment of new should pay attention towards the value of community, social, and environmental systems that influence. In this perspective, then the law is always konteksual with the issue and the development of society (the development of the law gradually works out what is socially reasanable, Karl Renner: 1969, p. 33-45). In the perspective of the establishment of the electoral legislation as the embodiment of the principle of democracy based on the law, then it is not allowed if the Act is thus injure the value of democracy, the value of the law, and the rights of society. An indication in that direction reflected Sha-23 not in article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) as well as Section 208 of the ACT of the election in 2012. III. 4. That article 1 paragraph (2) of the Constitution states, "Sovereignty is in the hands of the people and is exercised according to the basic law" designs article 1 paragraph (2) of the Constitution specifies that the meaning of popular sovereignty which were done through the election with the constitutional foundation, namely that elections should refer to electoral principles as defined by article 22 E paragraph (1) the CONSTITUTION of 1945. Democracy as a form of election should be subject to a system of rules that were designed for it, so the system rules the elections must not be contrary to the principle of which is set by the Constitution. As a country that elected system of Government is presidential, then the Constitution sets out the design of the implementation of the general election, positioning the selector as the giver of the mandate directly to the holder of the legislative power as well as the holder of the Executive power. In this connection, article 22E paragraph (1) States that, "the general election held in direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years." The principle of "direct" is also set in the presidential election of President danWakil stated in article 6A of paragraph (1) which reads; "The President and Vice President are elected in one partner directly by the people." This means that the principle of elections in "direct" is the spirit/soul of a presidential system of Government. Although both these provisions mandated direct election, the election of the President and Vice President are regulated in more detail in the Constitution, but rather the settings about the direct election of legislative members are further regulated in the legislation. Referring to the experience of 2 (two) times the general election after the change of Constitution, citing legal policy, shaper legislation difficult to control in setting legislative election design, i.e. when formulating norms threshold. As well as ACT No. 10 of 2008 about the legislative election in 2009 has introduced a layered threshold, i.e. the threshold elektoral and parliamentary threshold. A threshold policy is once again under the pretext of legal policy to meet the 2014 Elections 24 in forming legislation affirming again the parliamentary threshold diperberat i.e. quantitatively quantity threshold of Parliament raised to 3.5% but also imposed nationally. This option will close the opportunities for political parties that have support in certain areas because it is not able to meet the threshold nationally. The actual legal policy reasons can be justified if it does not conflict with the design and the substance of the Constitution. Similarly, if the reason of quantity threshold of Parliament raised to 3.5% as a tool to simplify the political parties, but still must consider the fundamental rights to Assembly and assemble as defined by article 28 of the CONSTITUTION of 1945. In principle not permitted legal policy regarding the parliamentary threshold set forth in a legal norm turns out to be contrary to the rights of Assembly and Association as the rights set forth in the basic norm i.e. Article 28 Constitution. III. 5. That increased the high threshold is indeed intended as an effort to simplify the system of the party, but on the other hand, an increase in the threshold is high and less reasonable it will also increase the number of wasted votes. When in addition the amount of wasted votes result in increased disproporsionalitas election results and this should be avoided in proportional Election System. To find out the extent of the influence of the application of the threshold of representation proportional Election system works against, to do the simulation calculation of quantity thresholds that affect voice wasted thereby increasing disproporsionalitas. In this perspective, can put forward the ELECTION COMMISSION data illustrates that in 1999 elections that do not apply the threshold, there is a 3,755,383 (3.55%) votes are wasted. If the threshold is applied, the number of votes will be wasted. For example with a quantity threshold of 2.5%, which is applied to the 2009 election, then the number of wasted votes surged five-fold to become 14,195,221 (13,41%). This means the threshold 25 has a positive influence towards increasing disproporsionalitas election results and generally can be described as follows: 2004 election produces 5,223,845 (4.60%) votes are wasted. The number of wasted votes increased to 19,662,644 (17,33%) if the threshold of 2.5% apply. The number of wasted votes surged 5-fold to more than 22,633,131 (19.95%) if the threshold is increased to 3%; With a threshold of 2.5%, election 2009 yielded 19,047,481 (18,13%) votes are wasted. So the theoretical seecara's with simple reasoning, with an increase in the threshold becomes 3.5%, the number of wasted votes that will be growing; Therefore, with the known number of wasted votes, the index can be calculated through the formula posts were disproportionately Gallagher, showed an increase of quantity thresholds correlated positively to increased disproporsionalitas election result (Pattern of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, Arend Lijphart: 1999, p. 153). That is, the higher the quantity threshold, then the election results the more disproportionate. Based on the simulation of measurement Index posts were disproportionately, seen that an increase in the threshold of influencing the increase in the number of wasted votes and the level of disproporsionalitas. An increase in the magnitude of the threshold effect directly against the increase in the number of wasted votes, which then affect the increase in the index disproporsionalitas. But the larger the Index proportional Election system posts were disproportionately, then the level of political representation of the electorate also is getting low. If any threshold required to reduce the number of political parties in the Parliament, with the hope that it will be able to simplify the system of the party, while the application of the thresholds fixed rate must hold the vote so that the level of disproporsionalitas is not wasted on the rise, how much quantity threshold is right for national elections to choose members of Parliament? or what is the optimal threshold? Departing from the formula developed by Taagepera, with indicators contained in the Election LAW itself, namely: the size of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Seat (S = 560), average magnitudes (M = 3-10), and the number of electoral or (E = 77 Dapil), then the


26 counting results show that magnitude threshold for optimal representation of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Election is 1.03% (Seats & Votes: The Effects & Derterminants of Electoral Systems, Rein Taagepera & Matthew Soberg Shughart: 1989, p. 267). It means that, threshold 2.5% on the 2009 election, and 3.5% in the election ACT in 2012 that will be used in elections in 2014, mathematically actually exceeded the optimal thresholds. In other words, the purpose of the implementation of the parliamentary Threshold in the Elections ACT intended for simplification of the party is not right. Even the increase be 3.5%, it may cause an imbalance of proportional election system works with the aim of simplifying the party system in Parliament. III. 6. That the Applicant needs to be expressed criticism of the Court's performance against the Shaper of the ACT (the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and President) because in every Political ACT included the establishment of the electoral ACT has always been inconsistent, always try, and no clear direction. In a ruling of the Constitutional Court No. 3/PUU-VII/2009, date, February 13, 2009, paragraph [was 3.20], pp. 130-131), the Court in one of the considerations in an award, the Court stated: "[was 3.20] considering that despite the Court held the policy PT listed in article 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 the same konstitusionalnya with the policies laid out in the ACT ET 3/1999 and LAW 12/2003, however the Court assess the framer of laws inconsistent with their policies and Election related impressed always experiment and do not already have a design that is clear about what is meant by a simple system of the party to the creation of leading up to the election, so that each is always followed by the formation of new legislation in the field of politics, namely the laws on political parties, laws on elections, and legislation regarding the arrangement and position of the MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD. " (vide: the ruling of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT-RI No. 3/PUU-VII/2009, date, February 13, 2009, paragraph [was 3.20], pp. 130-131) III. 7. That the Constitutional Court of the warning seems not a trace for members of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and the President and seem just as ordinary statements, not the constitutional statement that should be heard 27 moreover noted in the formation of the ACT in the field of politics such as political parties ACT and the Elections ACT. Still fresh in our minds how Shaper ACT in the formation of Political Party LAW changes, namely ACT No. 2 2015 about changes to the LAW number 2 of 2008 about a political party then still tinged the obscurity of direction and vision. Shaper ACT put a provision in article 51 paragraph (1) of LAW No. 2 in 2011 and associated with it requires for the political party that has already incorporated the law to make adjustments with verified, which funnily enough, repeat the requirements to obtain a legal entity. Something that is really very irony. In the end the performance of such ACT gets forming the "resistance" of the constitutional political parties including The Applicants by bringing provisions were to be tested materikan to Court and then was canceled through the ruling of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT No. 15/PUU-IX/2011 juncto Verdict MK number 18/PUU-IX/2011; III. 8. That, however, the irony of a founding ACT still continues. In the formation of the electoral ACT in the year 2012 is yet another stunning ACT of Forming a long list of the irony of its performance by incorporating the provisions of membership elections are very unfair and discriminatory between political parties Election participants before (election 2009) that meets the threshold of Parliament with party political Election participants before (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of Parliament as well as the applicant. Also enter provisions increase the threshold numbers tally the votes valid nationally (commonly called: the threshold of Parliament or a parliamentary threshold/PT) and its enforcement in the flat National/Centre (for the determination of the seat of PARLIAMENT) until to the area (for the determination of the seat of the provincial and kabupaten/kota). The existence of provisions of the enforcement of retention elections are very unfair and discriminatory as well as increase the threshold number of Parliament and its enforcement in the national flats will erode even eliminate the presence of kemajemukan or the bhineka tunggal ika's and unity as well as the principle of the sovereignty of the people and the representatives of 28 as mandated the opening of a real Constitution should be the goals of the law (rechtsidee) from the formation of the electoral ACT itself. III. 9. The provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous election or the election ACT" contrary to Article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1) Article 28D, paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution. III. 9.1. That article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the election ACT States: article 8 (1) of the political party Electoral Participants at the last election that meets the threshold of gaining votes from the total number of valid votes nationally designated as the political party Electoral Participants at the next election; (2) political party that does not meet the threshold gains the previous Election or vote on a new political party can become the participant of the election after fulfilling the requirements: ... III. 9.2. That some provisions in the Constitution stating that; Article 22E subsection (1) of the Constitution states that, "the general election held in direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years."; Article 22E paragraph (3) of the Constitution states that, "the participants of the general election to elect members of the House of representatives and members of the regional representative Council is the political party"; Article 27 paragraph (1) of the Constitution, "all citizens simultaneously its position in law and Government and obliged to uphold the law and rule it with no kecualinya"; Article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution, "everyone has the right to promote himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country";

29 Section 28D subsection (1) of the Constitution, "everyone is entitled to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law"; Article 28D paragraph (3) of the Constitution mentions, "every citizen has the right to obtain equal opportunities in the Government"; Article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution, "everyone has the right freely over discriminatory treatment on the basis of anything and is entitled to protection against discriminatory treatment"; III. 9.3. That the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the election ACT regulates the following things: the political party electoral participants at the last election (election 2009) that meet the threshold of valid votes nationwide tally (commonly called: the threshold of Parliament or a parliamentary threshold/PT) are automatically set as a participant in the next election (2014), without having to go through factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION; The political party Electoral participants at the last election (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of valid votes nationwide tally does not automatically set up as the next election participants (2014); The political party Electoral participants at the last election (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of valid votes nationwide tally equated his position with a new political party in terms of membership the next elections (2014); The political party Electoral participants at the last election (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of valid votes nationwide acquisition or the new party can become the participants of the next elections (2014), through factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION. III. 9.4. That the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally"


30 and subsection (2) the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or vote" Election ACT contrary to Article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution. This is because, as follows: 1) Provisions a quo raises legal uncertainty that fair (fair legal uncertainty). The provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the election ACT a quo is actually a change or replacement of previous provisions in article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 Election of members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD. The provisions of article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 Election of members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD stated, "the political party Electoral Participants in previous Elections can become a Participant of the election at the next elections." In article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 noted, "is a" previous "Elections is to start in 2009 and the next Election." The provisions of article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 has ensured that, political parties Election participants before (election 2009) into the next Election participants (2014), without distinguishing whether the political party Electoral participants before (election 2009) it meets the threshold of Parliament or not. In one of the Court's consideration in the award stated: "[3.18] considering that, according to the Court, in postulates the Applicant about the inkonstitusionalitas 202 Article paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 not well-grounded and mutatis mutandis also unwarranted to declare unconstitutional article related Article 202 article paragraph (1), namely Article 203, article 205, article 206, section 207, section 208, and section 209 of the ACT of 10/2008. According to the Court, if compared with the policy listed in ET 31 laws of the previous Elections, that ACT 3/1999 and LAW 12/2003, which threaten the existence of the Centre and his chance to follow in the next elections, the policy stated in article PT 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 even more guarantees the existence of political parties and Election Participants participation in the next elections, as stated in article 8 paragraph (2) of LAW 10/2008 which reads , "Political parties Election Participants in previous Elections can become a Participant of the election at the next elections." Explanation of article 8 paragraph (2) that reads, "is the ' previous ' Election is to start in 2009 and the next Election." (vide: the ruling of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT-RI No. 3/PUU-VII/2009, dated 13 February 2009, paragraph [3.18], pp. 129-130). From the quote above, it is clear that the Court is to interpret the provisions of article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 has ensured that, political parties election participants before (election 2009) into the next election participants (2014). However, then the provisions of article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 amended or replaced by the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election year of 2012 is unfair and discriminatory, that only political parties Election participants before (election 2009) that meets the threshold of Parliament just automatically become participants of the next elections (2014). The provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the Election Act clearly gives rise to legal uncertainty that fair (fair legal uncertainty) for the applicant. For applicants from the previous already guaranteed to become participants of the next elections (elections of 2014) as the provisions of article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 Years 32 2008. However, because as a result of any such changes or substitutions be provision in article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election in 2012, then the Appellant cannot obtain a guarantee of legal certainty the fair (fair legal uncertainty) in membership the next elections (elections of 2014). Lon Fuller in his book, The Morality of the Law (Morality law) States that the ideals of power law demanded that the rules are fair. As for the principles as a guide in making the law, so that so that the nature of fair legal rules than can be encouraged, among other things, that in law there must be finality. The law should not be personalised way every time, so that people can no longer orienting its activities to him (vide: Prof. Dr. A.A.G. Peters and Koesriani Siswosoebroto, S.H. (Editor), the legal and Social Developments, Legal Sociology text book, Book III, Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan, 1990, pp. 61-62). In the same view, Nonet and Selznick declared that changes or replacement of the law should be more favourable towards the affected party rules. Law in democracies like Idonesia, should not be detrimental or not to regard the people's interests or parties arranged (repressive in nature). Because, that repressive nature means serve the repressive powers. Instead, it must be responsive in nature in the sense of serving the needs and interests of socially experienced and and found, not by officials but by the people (vide: Prof. Dr. A.A.G. Peters and Koesriani Siswosoebroto, S.H., legal and Social Developments, Legal Sociology text book, Book III, Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan, Jakarta, 1990, pp. 166-184). Can the Applicant pointed out here in terms of membership elections there are already legal precedent where changes or replacement of law thus benefit the peoples in casu 33 political parties. In the previous Election LAW as set forth in article 9 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of LAW No. 12 of 2003 on general elections of members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD: article 9 (1) to be able to follow the next general election, political parties Election Participants must: a. obtain at least 3% (three percent) of the number of seats of the PARLIAMENT; b. obtain at least 4% (four percent) total Provincial seats spread over at least ½ in (half) the number of provinces throughout Indonesia; or c. obtain at least 4% (four percent) number of seats of REGIONAL district/city spread over ½ (half) the number of kabupaten/kota throughout Indonesia. (2) political party Electoral Participants who do not meet the conditions referred to in subsection (1) may only be following the next general election if: a. joined the political party Electoral Participants who meet the conditions referred to in subsection (1); b. join political parties that do not meet the conditions referred to in subsection (1) and then use the image name and the sign of a political party that merged so that meet the acquisition of minimum number of seats; or c. joined the political party that does not meet the conditions referred to in subsection (1) by forming a new political party with the name and sign a new image so it meets the minimum number of seat gains. After the 2004 election, then the provision was modified or replaced in the Transitional Provisions of article 315 Article 316 of the ACT and number 10 in the 2008 Election, DPD, a member of Parliament and the PARLIAMENT, which is indeed the same material or contents with the provisions of the previous 34 in article 9 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of LAW No. 12 of 2003, by giving the ' excuse ' that can follow the next election (election 2009) with conditions "have a seat in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES election results 2004". The provisions of article 315 Article 316 and ACT No. 10 of 2008, States: CHAPTER XXIII the PROVISIONS of TRANSITIONAL Article 315 of the political parties in the 2004 Election Participants who obtain at least 3% (three perseratus) the number of seats of the PARLIAMENT or obtain at least 4% (four perseratus) total provincial seats spread over sekurangkurangnya in 1/2 (half) of the total number of provinces throughout Indonesia, or obtain at least 4% (four perseratus) the number of seats the DPRD kabupaten/kota that are scattered in at least 1/2 (half) of the total number of kabupaten/kota all over Indonesia , established as a political party Electoral Participants after the election in 2004. Article 316 of the political parties in the 2004 Election Participants who do not meet the provisions of article 315 can follow elections in 2009 with provisions: a. joined the political party Electoral Participants who meet the conditions as referred to in article 315; or b. joined the political party that does not meet the conditions referred to in Article 315 and thereafter used the name and picture of a political party that merged so that meet the acquisition of minimum number of seats; or c. joined the political party that does not meet the conditions referred to in Article 315 by forming


35 new political party with the name and sign a new image so it meets the minimum number of seats gains; or d. have a seat in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES election results 2004; or e. meets the requirements of the verification by the ELECTION COMMISSION for Political Party become the Participants of the election as provided in this Act. Alteration or replacement of article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 that has provided a guarantee for political parties Election participants before (election 2009) became participants of the next elections (elections, 2014), later modified or changed to the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the election ACT in 2012 which determines only the political party Electoral participants before (election 2009) that meets the threshold of Parliament who became participants of the next elections (elections of 2014) , this is definitely a change or replacement of law that is not fair, do not provide a guarantee of certainty, and harming the interests of the Applicant (repressive in nature). The provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT" in 2012, thus, contrary to Article 22E subsection (1) and section 28D subsection (1) of the Constitution. 2) Provisions a quo discriminatory provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT" discriminatory ablaze.

36 The Applicant need be posited the notion of discrimination from the law as given glasses tafsirnya by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of number 19/PUU-VIII/2010 dated November 1, 2011. The distinction can give rise to legal discrimination is a distinction which give rise to different rights between parties who are distinguished, discerning which give rise to the rights and/or obligations are different. In the Court ruling stated that: [3.15.3] that the evidence against the applicant above, the Court held, against discrimination which is always associated with the presence of different treatment towards something, does not mean that such different treatment immediately will cause discrimination law. A distinction that gives rise to discrimination law, must be taken into consideration regarding the distinction between what is and on what grounds the distinction. A distinction that will give rise to different legal status of the course will be followed by a legal relationship and legal consequences are different between the distinguished. Of distinctions-distinctions that arise in the relationship of law and the legal consequences due to differing legal status be reflected aspects of the discrimination laws of a distinction, because the presence of known differentiation thereof shall rights posed by discrimination. Therefore, a distinction that can lead to legal discrimination is a distinction which may give rise to different rights between parties who are distinguished. Thus, only the distinction of bearing rights and/or obligations that are different that may give rise to discrimination law. Because advocates rights and/or obligations are the subject of the law, then the only distinction that raises different legal position against the subject of the law can give rise to discrimination law.

37 (vide: the ruling of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT number 19/PUU-VIII/2010 dated 1 November 2011, PG. 131) the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election has been distinguishing between political parties in the previous general election participants (2009 Elections) that meets the threshold of Parliament with party political Election participants before (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of Parliament in the next elections in membership (of the 2014 Elections). And the ONLY political party in the previous general election participants (2009 Elections) that meets the threshold of Parliament that automatically become participants of the next elections (elections, 2014), with no through factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION. While on the other hand, political parties Election participants before (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of Parliament must pass through factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION to be able to become the next elections (elections of 2014). From the explanation above, just how it looks clear that the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT" is a distinction that gives rise to discrimination because the law gives rise to different rights between parties who are distinguished , a distinction that creates rights and/or obligations between different political parties in the previous general election participants (2009 Elections) that does not meet the threshold of Parliament with party political Election participants before (election 2009) that meets the threshold of Parliament. Whereas, as already expressed earlier that the provision, as well as article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 that there is no pembedaaan between 38 political parties Election participants before (election 2009) that meets the threshold of Parliament with party political Election participants before (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of Parliament in the next elections in membership (of the 2014 Elections). That all political participants the previous Election (election 2009) get a guarantee in membership on the next elections (elections, 2014), as well as the opinion of the Court in its Verdict the COURT number 3-RI/PUU-VII/2009, dated 13 February 2009, paragraph [3.18], pp. 129-130. If the Applicant was already guaranteed as a participant in the next elections (elections of 2014) as article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 juncto Verdict MK-RI No. 3/PUU-VII/2009, date, February 13, 2009, but then according to the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) should the Elections ACT through the factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION to be able to become the next elections (elections of 2014) , then this means against the applicant had imposed double standard (double standard): first, the application of the threshold of Parliament or a parliamentary threshold/PT and then, the second is sanction electoral threshold, because The applicant as a party political Election participants before (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of Parliament likened his position with a new political party. This very real discriminatory. Therefore, the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT" contrary to article 27 paragraph (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution.

39 3) Provisions a quo obstructing the Applicant to advance himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, nation and country Settings as specified article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the ACT means the Election also has been obstructing the Applicant to advance himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country. For the Applicant to be able to become the next elections (elections of 2014) exposed to obstruction through factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION. Not as much as for the political party electoral participants before (election 2009) that meets the threshold of Parliament. This means that the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT" contrary to Article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution. III. 10. Provisions of article 208 or at least all the phrases: "the Provincial and Kabupaten/Kota of LEGISLATIVE" Elections ACT contrary to article 1 paragraph (2), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution. III. 10.1. That Article 208 Electoral ACT States: "the political party Electoral Participants must meet a threshold of sound acquisition at least 3.5% (three out of five comma perseratus) of the total number of valid votes nationally for being included in the determination of the acquisition of the Chair members of Parliament, provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota" III. 10.2. That the opening of the 4th paragraph Constitution states: after these to form a State Government that Indonesia protect the Nations Indonesia and all the spilled blood of Indonesia and to promote the general welfare,


40 the intellectual life of the nation, and carry out the order of the world which is based on freedom, eternal peace and social justice, then disusunlah the independence of Indonesia Nationality it in a Constitution of the State of Indonesia, which is formed in an order of the Republic of Indonesia which independent people with based on the divinity of the one true God, just and Civilized Humanity, the unity of Indonesia and Populist led by wisdom the wisdom in a Consultative/Representative , as well as with realizing a social justice for all the people of Indonesia; III. 10.3. That some provisions in the Constitution stating that; Article 1 paragraph (2) of the Constitution mentions, "Sovereignty is in the hands of the people and is exercised according to the basic law."; Article 22E subsection (1) of the Constitution states that "the election was carried out in direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years."; Article 22E paragraph (2) of the Constitution states that, "the general election was held to elect members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, the President and the Vice President and the House of representatives."; Article 22E paragraph (3) of the Constitution states that: "the participants of the general election to choose members of the House of representatives and members of the regional representative Council is the political party"; Article 27 paragraph (1) of the Constitution states that, "all citizens simultaneously its position in law and Government and obliged to uphold the law and rule it with no kecualinya."; Article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution, "everyone has the right to promote himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country.";

41 Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution, "everyone is entitled to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law."; Article 28D paragraph (3) of the Constitution mentions, "every citizen has the right to obtain equal opportunities in Government."; Article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution, "everyone has the right freely over discriminatory treatment on the basis of anything and is entitled to protection against discriminatory treatment."; Article II additional rules Constitution stated, "With the establishment of the changes to this Constitution, the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 consists of the preamble and the articles of."; III. That article 22E 10.4. paragraph (2) of the Constitution states that, "the general election was held to elect members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, the President and the Vice President and the House of representatives of the region." Pay attention to the provisions of article 22E paragraph (2) the CONSTITUTION of 1945, the explanation can be found unequivocally that elections are held to select members of Parliament, members of the DPD, the President and Vice President, members of the provincial PARLIAMENT and a member of Kabupaten/Kota. These provisions distinguish clearly targets the use of voting rights, and simultaneously the affirmation against granting voting rights to do with different levels of representation. As one manifestation of people's sovereignty, the implementation of sound it is aimed into the ballot box, not to be negated and reduces the meaning of polling to the ballot box in the other. This means each box as a representation of voting rights as the rights to vote, to have the value of the representation of each one, so that is not possible because it does not reach a certain threshold on in a certain city eliminate representation on the other box. Strictly speaking, 42 representations representation on House members cannot reduce the representation representation on provincial and district/city. Thus, the enforcement of national parliamentary threshold as set forth in article 208 of the 2012 Election ACT obviously injure the principle of democracy that was established by Article 22E subsection (1) and article 22E paragraph (2) of the Constitution. In addition, the provisions of article 208 of the 2012 Election ACT could potentially reduce voter choice, promoting diversity and highly potential killing people's rights in determining their representation in the legislature at each of the different levels. It simultaneously means that the enactment of the Parliament of the national thresholds into the engine of a mass killer promoting diversity as mandated political Constitution. With the loss of promoting diversity politics, became a serious threat and very likely political parties that traditionally only has a base of support in specific areas, but since it does not reach the threshold of national Parliament, automatically the sound of pemilihnya will be lost until the provincial and kabupaten/kota. III. 10.5 That the provisions of article 208 of the election set things as follows: the existence of a threshold provision valid vote tally nationally (commonly called: the threshold of Parliament or a parliamentary threshold/PT); There is an increase in the number of parliamentary threshold be 3.5% (three out of five comma perseratus), from previous 2.5% (two comma five perseratus) Article 202 as provided for in subsection (1) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 Election of members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD; The enactment of the parliamentary threshold in the flats of national/central (for the determination of the seat of PARLIAMENT) until to the area (for the determination of the seat of the provincial and kabupaten/kota);

43 III. 10.6. That the provisions of article 208 of the ACT Election contrary to the opening paragraph of the 4th Constitution, article 1 paragraph (2) and article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution. As for the reasons that need to be addressed are as follows: 1) Provisions a quo of eliminating popular sovereignty and the people's political representation That regarding the legitimate voice of the earnings threshold nationally (commonly called: the threshold of Parliament or a parliamentary threshold/PT) is actually the Court has given an opinion and interpretation in the ruling of the Constitutional Court No. 3/PUU-VII/2009 13 March 2009 date that it became the domain of the Shaper of the ACT with a note not to be contrary to the political rights , popular sovereignty, and rationality. The Court in one of the considerations in the award, stating: [3.19] considering that can thus be inferred that the legislature can define the threshold as a legal policy for the existence of political parties either shaped or PT. ET Policy like this is allowed by the Constitution as a political party because of the fact that simplification of the existence of the law on the system of Nationality or Political laws associated are indeed meant to make such limitations to the extent allowed by the Constitution. About how the magnitude of the threshold number is to become an authority forming legislation to specify one without may were interfered by the Court for not incompatible with political rights, popular sovereignty, and rationality. Thus, according to the Court, the provisions regarding the existence of PT as regulated in article 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 does not violate the Constitution because the provisions of 44 law a quo has given opportunities for every citizen to form a political party, but at the same time selected and bounded rationally through provisions of the PT to be able to have a representative in the House. No matter where in the world is the Constitution gives authorizes the creation of legislation to determine the limitations in the legislation for the implementation of the political rights of the people. (vide: the ruling of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT No. 3/PUU-VII/2008 dated February 13, 2009, 130 pp.) The increase in the number of parliamentary threshold and its enforcement in the national flat clear will eliminate the principle of popular sovereignty, will eliminate the voice of the people as voters in the election and gave birth to the members of Parliament, provincial or district/city LEGISLATORS who are not selected based on the choice of the people. Thus, the political representation of people's politics (political representativeness) are indeed being the purpose of the elections as had been expressed to be not there, because there is a disjuncture between the people with the choice of representing the people (the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial or LOCAL County/City). From the experience of previous elections 2009 parliamentary threshold of 2.5% (two comma five perseratus) Article 202 as provided for in subsection (1) of ACT No. 10 in 2008, there were 19,047,481 or 18.31% popular vote lost or did not receive the political representation of the total number of valid votes as much as 104,048,118. While the number of invalid votes was 17,540,248 or 14.43% of the total number of voters as much voice 121,588,366. Thus, the total sound is missing is: 19,047,481 + 17,540,248 = 36,587,720 or about 30.09% of total voters as much voice 121,588,366. Refer to the table below.


Valid vote count result of 45 political parties Election Participants 2009 1 people's conscience party 3,925 14,825 3.77% 2 of the party work of the Concerned Nations 1,461 .375 1.40% 3 workers and employers party Indonesia 745.965 0.72% people's National Party Cares 4 1,260,950 1.21% 5 Indonesia movement party Kingdom 4.48% 6,795 4,642 National Front Party 760.712 0.73% 7 Indonesia justice and unity party 936.133 0.90% 8 prosperous Justice Party 8,204,946 7.89% 9 national mandate Party 6,273,462 6.03% 10 of the new Indonesia party of Struggle 198.803 0.19% 11 Party Sovereignty 438.030 0.42% of the regional unity party 553.299 12 0.53% 13 National Awakening Party,302 5,146 4.95% 14 Youth Party Indonesia 415.563 0.40% 15 Indonesia national party Marhaenism 317.433 0.31% 16 renewal Democratic Party 896.959 0.86% 17 functional party of struggle 351.571 0.34% 18 Solar Nation Party 415.294 0.40% 7 Indonesia Democracy Party Enforcement 139.988 0.13% of the National Democratic Party 20 671.356 0.65% 21 Republicans Nusantara 631.814 0.61% 22 Party Pioneer 345.092 0.33% 23 Golkar 15,031,497 13% 24 United Development Party 5,544,332 5.33% 25 prosperous peace party 1,522.032 1.46% 26 National Populist Fortress Party Indonesia 468.856 0.45% 27 Crescent Star Party zmawaf125,642 1.79% 28 Indonesia Democratic Party of Struggle 14,576,388 2% 29 reform Star Party 1,264 1,319 1.21% 30 Patriot Party 547.798 0.53% 31 Democrats 21,655,295 20.81% Indonesia Democracy Party 32 325.771 0.31% of the prosperous Indonesia Party 46 33 321.019 0.31% 34 1,527 Ulema National Awakening Party,509 1.47% 35 Independent Party 111.609 0.03% 36 Nahdlatul Ummah Indonesia Party 146.831 0.14% 37 Party Indonesia 141.558 unity 0.14% 38 Labour 265.369 0.26% of the TOTAL VOTES 104,048,118 100% Valid Votes 104,048,118 85.57% the number of Invalid Votes 17,540,248 30% Total,366 100.00% 121,588 Voter Turnout of the party Escaped PT 85,637 81.69% of number of votes A Party does not qualify for PT 19,047,481 18% TOTAL VALID VOTES,118 100.00% Total 104,048 votes are missing: the number of votes A Party does not qualify for PT,481 19,047 52.06% of the Votes Invalid 17,540,248 47.94% of TOTAL VOTES,729 100.00% 36,587 MISSING Total Votes Missing :,720 36,587 30.09% source: prepared from Drs. s. Syafriadi Yatim, Sigit Joyowardono, SH, et al., election 2009 in numbers, one vote for the future!, London: the Electoral Commission, January, PG. 24. 30. This means, the provision of article 208 of the ACT Election contrary to the Preamble of 1945 the 4th paragraph, stating, "... formed in an order of the Republic of Indonesia which independent people ...", and the fourth sila of Pancasila, "led by Populist wisdom wisdom in Consultative/representation." And contrary to article 1 paragraph (2) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; That as already cited above, the Court has given an opinion and interpretation that the threshold of 47 Parliament became the domain of the Shaper of the ACT with a note not to be contrary to political rights, popular sovereignty, and rationality. The word "rational" according to the Dictionary of large Indonesian Language means: according to a logical mind and the scales; According to the healthy mind; matched with intellect (vide: a dictionary of the construction Team and the development of language, the great Indonesian Language Dictionary, Second Edition, Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1999, pp. 792). Article 208 of the ACT regulating the enforcement of Election thresholds generally flat from parliamentary National/Centre (for the determination of the seat of PARLIAMENT) until to the area (for the determination of the seat of the provincial and kabupaten/kota). That is, if for example the voice PKNU for House members do not meet the threshold of Parliament, then the votes in the election for the PKNU House members even for members of the provincial PARLIAMENT and a member of kabupaten/kota becomes lost, though despite the acquisition of the votes in the election for the PKNU Member provincial and REGIONAL district/city win among other parties even though victorious in many areas. And a voice that could not be included PKNU for determination of seats not only for the seats of the PARLIAMENT, but is also not automatically included for the determination of the seat of the provincial and REGIONAL district/city. From these provisions, look how the election in this regard Parliament's threshold concept became very irrational; extremely illogical; very healthy mind is not acceptable; It is very unreasonable. Why? For the determination of the seat of the provincial and REGIONAL district/town resting on the tally of votes candidates and vote for the party, but each voter will be given three (3) models of ballots to elect members of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, to elect members of the provincial PARLIAMENT, and to select members of the DPRD kabupaten/kota offices or candidates were different. Then, for what's the point of 48 ballots to elect members of the provincial PARLIAMENT and to choose members of the DPRD kabupaten/kota and includes a list of the names of the candidates it? Another thing that causes this Parliament threshold be irrational is, because with the increase in the number of parliamentary threshold be 3.5% (three out of five comma perseratus) from previous 2.5% (two comma five perseratus) will cause the larger more popular vote of voters is wasted and not get political representation (political representativeness) for either the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial LEGISLATORS, district/city. And it's very irrational, because the real goal of the elections was about to realize the existence of political representation (political representativeness), i.e. terwakilinya the interests of community members by their representatives in the institutions and the political process. 2) Provisions a quo kemajemukan or damaging bhineka tunggal ika's and Union figures Increase the threshold of Parliament above the previous figure 2.5% and with the application of the system of national flat light-the light will damage the existence of a kemajemukan nation (bhineka tunggal ika). The number of political parties that do not meet the threshold of Parliament not only lost his seat in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, but also at the level of provincial and REGIONAL district/city. This will result in a large number of entities and local communities is not terwadahi and is not represented in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial and REGIONAL district/city. This is the case, the flow of political thoughts that originally represented in the diversity of political parties will also be lost due to political parties last terjegal was unable to send its representatives in the Parliament. In the meantime, because of the large number of entities and local communities as well as the flow of political thoughts that are not represented in political institutions in this HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial and REGIONAL district/city, then it will result in the integration of the nation's fragile national unity or 49. The provisions of article 208 of the ACT very clearly opposed to the election of Preamble of 1945 the 4th paragraph, which mentions, "... to form a Government that will protect the whole nation Indonesia Indonesia and all the spilled blood of Indonesia ...", and the third sila of Pancasila, "Indonesia's unity"; 3) Provisions a quo is contrary to the political rights of the Applicant in this case to advance himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country, as expressed in the opinion of the High Court (vide: the ruling of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT No. 3/PUU-VII/2008 dated February 13, 2009, PG. 130), that the threshold of Parliament be unconstitutional or against the Constitution, if it conflicts with political rights. The Applicant, one of them his political rights guaranteed by the Constitution (UUD 1945) to advance himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country. This is regulated in article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution. However, the political rights of it being stolen generations due to the enactment of the provisions of article 208 of the ACT of the election. Because, if the Applicant does not meet the threshold of Parliament which have been determined in the amount of 3.5% (three out of five comma perseratus) for members of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES. Thus, the applicants are deterred to advance himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country through the parliamentary (DPR and DPRD provincial or district/city), because it was unable to send a representative not only of the HOUSE seats, but also automatically Chair provincial and REGIONAL district/city. Thus, article 208 of the ACT Election contrary to Article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution.


50 III. 6.6. That based on the descriptions above, article 208 of the election ACT is contrary to the goals of the law (rechtsidee) from the formation of the electoral ACT itself in casu Preamble 1945 aline to-4 and article 1 paragraph (2), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution. IV. Conclusion 1. That therefore the Constitutional Court is authorized to check, try and break this petition. 2. That the applicant as a public legal entity has the legal position (legal standing, legitima persona standi in judicio) to act as the Applicant in the application for testing article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT"; 3. That the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT" harm the constitutional rights of the applicant because it is very unfair and discriminatory to the applicant. 4. terms of a quo raises legal uncertainty that fair (fair legal uncertainty). Because the applicant is from earlier already guaranteed to become participants of the next elections (elections of 2014) as the provisions of article 8 paragraph (2) and article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT No. 10 of 2008. However, because as a result of any such changes or substitutions be provision in article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election in 2012, then the Appellant cannot obtain a guarantee of legal certainty the fair (fair legal uncertainty) in membership the next elections (elections of 2014). Thus, contrary to Article 22E subsection (1) and section 28D subsection (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945 51 5. That the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and subsection (2) the phrase "all the political parties that did not meet the threshold of gaining votes on the previous Election or the election ACT" contrary to Article 22E subsection (1) and subsection (3) 27, subsection (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3) , and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution. 6. That the provisions of article 208 of the ACT of the election is clearly going to disadvantage the potential adverse Sha-whether or not the applicant. The enactment of the increase in the number of parliamentary threshold while the enforcement in the flat from National/Centre (for the determination of the seat of PARLIAMENT) until to the area (for the determination of the seat of the provincial and kabupaten/kota) would be detrimental to the Applicant, because many voters ' voice of the people who choose the Applicant will disappear only if such gains votes in elections for the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES did not meet the threshold of Parliament; 7. That the provisions of article 208 of the ACT Election contrary to the opening paragraph of the 4th Constitution, article 1 paragraph (2) of the Constitution and article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution. This is due to the provisions of a quo of eliminating popular sovereignty and political representation of the people. The increase in the number of parliamentary threshold and its enforcement in the national flat clear will eliminate the principle of popular sovereignty, will eliminate the voice of the people as voters in the election and gave birth to the members of Parliament, provincial or district/city LEGISLATORS who are not selected based on the choice of the people. Thus, the political representation of people's politics (political representativeness) are indeed being the purpose of the election being no, because there is a disjuncture between the people with the choice of representing the people (the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial or LOCAL County/City). This means, the provision of article 208 of the ACT Election contrary to the preamble of the 1945 CONSTITUTION Opening the 4th paragraph, stating, "... formed in an order of the Republic of Indonesia which independent people ...", and the fourth sila of Pancasila, "led by Populist wisdom wisdom in Consultative/representation." And contrary to article 1 paragraph (2) of the Constitution.

52 8. Provision of a quo kemajemukan or damaging bhineka tunggal ika's and unity. The number of political parties that do not meet the threshold of Parliament not only lost his seat in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, but also at the level of provincial and REGIONAL district/city. This will result in a large number of entities and local communities is not terwadahi and is not represented in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial and REGIONAL district/city. This is the case, the flow of political thoughts that originally represented in the diversity of political parties will also be lost due to political parties last terjegal was unable to send its representatives in the Parliament. Thus, it will be fragile integration of Nations or national unity. This means contrary to the Preamble of 1945 the 4th paragraph, which mentions, "... to form a Government that will protect the whole nation Indonesia Indonesia and all the spilled blood of Indonesia ...", and the third sila of Pancasila, "Indonesia's unity". Further provisions of a quo will impede the constitutional rights of the Applicant to advance himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, the nation and the country, as guaranteed by article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution. Political rights of the Applicant as it becomes stolen generations. Because, if the Applicant does not meet the threshold of Parliament which have been determined in the amount of 3.5% (three out of five comma perseratus) for members of the House, then it has no representatives in both the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial or REGIONAL district/city. 9. That thus Article 208 Electoral ACT contrary to article 1 paragraph (2), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution. V. Petitum based on things that have been outlined above, the Applicant hereby bermohon to the Chairman of the Tribunal and Judge of the Constitutional Court received, reviewed, and adjudicate the matter a quo by dropping the verdict with amar as follows: 1. the application for the Grant applicant to entirely;

53 2. States article 8 paragraph (1) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or votes" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or at least Article 208 of the ACT of the election along with the phrase:.. " Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "law of the Republic of Indonesia number 8 in 2012 about the election, members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 117 in 2012, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5316) contrary to article 1 paragraph (2), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28, Section 28C subsection (2), section 28D subsection (1) and paragraph (3) , and article 28I paragraph (2) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 3. Article 8 paragraph (1) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and Psal 8 paragraph (2) of the ACT of the election along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or votes" as well as Article 208 of the ACT election or at least Article 208 of the ACT of the election along with the phrase:.. " Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "law of the Republic of Indonesia number 8 in 2012 about the election, members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 117 in 2012, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5316) do not have binding legal force; 4. Orders the loading of this ruling in the news of the Republic of Indonesia as it should be. If the Tribunal Judges the Constitution argued another, please do Assembly Justice of the Constitution can disconnect the seadil-fair (ex aequo et bono). [2.2] considering that to prove the evidence if possible, the Applicant submits evidence that writing letters/marked evidence of P-1 to P-6 with evidence, as follows: 1. Proof of P-1 photocopy of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, 54 regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives; 2. Proof of P-2 photocopies of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 3. Proof of P-3 a photocopy of the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity; 4. Proof of P-3a photocopy of Certificate the Director of State Administration Directorate General of common law administration of the AHU Number. 4. AH., at 11 -38; 5. Evidence of the P-3b photocopy of decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. HH-20. 11.01 2008 Ah.; 6. Proof of P-3 c Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. HH. 37. AH. 11.01 in 2008; 7. Proof of P-3d Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. UM 06:08.12.2003; 8. Proof of P-3e Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity the number M. 09.06:08 UM. 2003; 9. Proof of P-3f Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. HH-39. 11.01 2008 Ah.; 10. Proof of P-3 g Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. HH-30. Ah. 1.01 in 2008; 11. Proof of P-3 h Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. 05. UM. 5 in 2003; 12. Proof of P-3i Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity the number M-23. UM 06:08 2003.;


55 13. Proof of P-3j Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. HH-28. 11.01 2008 Ah.; 14. Proof of P-3 k Photocopying the decision letter of Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity the number M-04. UM 06:08 2003.; 15. Evidence of the P-3 l Photocopying the decision letter of the Minister of Justice and human rights regarding the Endorsement of the party as a legal entity Number m. HH-31. 11.01 2008 Ah.; 16. Proof of P-4 photocopies of Electoral News Event Number 46/5-BA/VII/2008 about the stipulation and the seeding Numbers Sort of political parties Election Participants in 2009; 17. Evidence of the P-5 Photocopying the Ministry of law and human rights Republic Indonesia Directorate General of common law Administration of the list of a political party Law incorporated; 18. Evidence of the P-6 Photocopy Act No. 2 2015 about changes in the law number 2 of 2008 about political parties. In addition, the Applicant also filed two expert and an Expert witness, namely Dr. Margarito Thursday and Prof. Dr. Saldi Isra, as well as a witness Dr. M.L. degree Denny Tewu, who has heard his statement under oath in the trial July 31, 2012 and August 6, 2012, which is substantially as follows: Expert Margarito Thursday: ACT 28/2012 apply the threshold nationally with magnitudes of 3.5% of the vote tally. Political parties who do not qualify will not be able to send its representatives to be members of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES was established. The existence of these provisions may be detrimental to political parties; and is certainly detrimental to the voters. These losses occur because the rights of voters born precede 56 political parties and the presence of political parties is a consequence of the rights of voters. The debates and the PPKI BPUPKI dream will not show the sovereignty of political parties, but of citizens became an independent sovereign/human. Political party is a tool to consolidate those dreams. Article 27 and article 28 Constitution that never changed until now, stating that the pride of everyone will be assured only by means of ensuring rights that are universally recognised as a human right in the Constitution. Human rights is the mother of elections, human rights are the roots of popular sovereignty, which is set in article 1 paragraph (2) of the Constitution. There will be no Elections to fill a single position as well as the plural of the HOUSE when everyone not recognized its rights as an independent individual or everyone is not sovereign. Shaper legislation have the right to judge freedom of regulated and unregulated. Legal policy-forming legislation to organize something and vice versa, it cannot be judged by the size of right or wrong, rather it should be measured by the size of the improper or inappropriate. But the propriety of sorts did penghangusan vote with 3.5% of the national vote invalid? Reduce the number of political parties, while reducing the number of fractions, so that the relationship between the President with the PARLIAMENT will be effective. However, how can the vote that became the base of the formation of the Government, even the law, destroyed by the proposition of Government or holding of streamline streamline the relationship between President with the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES? The policy guidelines of 3.5% no sense viewed from the angle of constitutional democracy, the decency, the spirit and logic of the law, so that the norm is unconstitutional. Political parties, which by article 22E paragraph (4) of the Constitution being predicated as a participant in legislative elections, the voters in the election is a tool for expressing his will about the bow of the State in the coming five years.

the framers of article 57 a quo did not declare such norms as the basis for the formation of a constitutional faction in Parliament. The fraction that is not another tool of political parties in the Parliament, thus rated law as a subject of law of State administration. Shaper legislation rate faction determines what should be created or not could be made by members of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES. The faction changed the nature of being as though the HOUSE itself. A growing number of factions, the ineffective conduct of the Government. Based on the foregoing, in order to be a functional relationship with the President of the PARLIAMENT is not complicated, then the number of the party must be reduced, by changing the institution gains a legitimate vote threshold nationally into a 3.5%. Constitutionally, the President's relationship with the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES is imperative nature of legal relations with the constitutional norms of footing, while political relations are the relations of the bargain. Thus, whether a reasonable complexity relationship charged to voters by way of gutting the vote. The debate on the Constitution PPKI-forming, as well as debate the MPR in 1999-2002 does not even declare the will make the fraction as a constitutional entity. The HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, because of the range of its functions may not be used as a foothold to build reasoning constitutionalism to equate with the provincial or district/city. Simultaneous selection process solely is a consequence. The area is formed by combining legislation with the aim of organizing management streamline the Government. In a unitary State not known Government Affairs of mutual berhimpit between the Central Government and regions. Pranata dekonsentrasi and medebewind, for example, make sure that the area is not the entity constitutions born to preempt the Center. The connective power of law made by the PARLIAMENT in contrast to the HOUSE, as well as its source. Thus, equating the numbers threshold 3.5% nationwide do not have a constitutional footing.

58 voters ' Rights must not be destroyed by reason of the reduction of political party or pengefektifan the relationship between the President and the Parliament, or between the head region with DPRD. The seat was first obtained legally can not be transferred to the second person who is not entitled under the pretext of the party the first person did not reach the threshold of gaining legitimate nationally. Expert Saldi Isra: enactment of a parliamentary threshold nationally hit a principle of autonomy of the region. The diversity of the area will be terbungkam by the parliamentary threshold mechanisms nationwide. If no local political parties elected to the PARLIAMENT, then the diversity in the region will not be represented. So who sits in the PARLIAMENT instead Deputy people's choice. The application of a threshold of national Parliament is incompatible with the purposes of the general election. Oemilu is the mechanism of removal of conflict from oak community Parliament. This situation resulted in the removal of the conflict does not occur because the local people who choose a local political party, it turns out that the local political party cannot enter the Parliament. The election of the REPRESENTATIVES is not linear with the election of members of Parliament, because voters can choose A party for PARLIAMENT but choose another party to the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES. Application of threshold nationally potentially mendelegitimasi the existence of the DPRD. Witness the birth of Tewu Denny M.L. degree political parties recently have given wider opportunities to the people of Indonesia to participate in the elections. At the parliamentary elections 2009 determined threshold 2.5% of the valid national votes results. In the 2009 election, as a candidate for Member of PARLIAMENT from North Sulawesi Dapil acquire 78,804 votes (5.25%) and was ranked fourth. Witnesses should occupy the seat of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES because the seats are contested in yan Dapil in North Sulawesi is a number of six seats. However, such witnesses are not sworn in 59, but instead appointed another parliamentary candidates are gaining voice under the witness. If the witness (PDS) party got 5.25% votes in Java, then PT will be easily exceeded. But in areas of low population, the winner is not necessarily easy to achieve the parliamentary threshold. The new political parties LAW oblige political parties that do not meet the parliamentary threshold in the general election in 2009 to be verified. The Constitutional Court on Monday, July 4, 2011, issued the Ruling number 18/PUU-IX/2011 grant application for judicial review of article 51 paragraph (1) and article 51 paragraph (1a) all verification phrase of political parties as referred to in paragraph (1) and on and on about the changes in the law number 2 of 2008 about political parties. If any political party should be verified, all political parties must also be verified. ACT 10/2008 should be aligned with the four pillars of nationhood. In law 8/2012, parliamentary threshold quantities shall be calculated proportionally that can represent the whole area SO. Tally Perludem stated that the parliamentary threshold in the national ideal is 1.03%. [2.3] considering that the petition against the Applicant, the Government delivered the opening statement orally during the trial on 17 July 2012, which substantially States the following: i. subject matter of the petition of the applicant 1. That the Applicant contended with the publication of law No. 8 in 2012, have been detrimental to the applicant. Since the publication of the law, resulting in the loss of the sovereignty of the people and the people's political representation in the elections. 2. That the establishment of law No. 8 year 2012 votes have damaged kemajemukan or kebhinekatunggalikaan and unity, as well as the resulting entities and local communities are not terwadahi and represented in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and LEGISLATORS.


60 3. That with the publication of a petition for quo object that assessed the legal uncertainty has led to a fair (fair legal uncertainty), the community's disarray and meyimpang from the goal to shape legislation that better because the political parties do not get the guarantees in Applicant membership elections in 2014. 4. In short, according to the Applicant, article 8 paragraph (1), article 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD contrary to article 1 paragraph (2), article 22A, article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. II. about the position of the law (Legal Standing) of the Applicant in accordance with the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24 of 2003 about the Constitutional Court mentioned that the applicant is a party which considers the rights and/or obligations konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of the legislation. Further, the Constitutional Court has given understanding and restrictions cumulatively about loss of rights and/or constitutional authority that arise due to the enactment of legislation under article 51 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, vide Verdict Number 006/PUU-III/2005 and decision number 11/PUU-V/2007. Thus, the Government needs to question the interest of the Applicant, whether is just right as the party considers the rights and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD and DPRD? In addition, if there is a constitutional disadvantage applicants are specialized, specific, and actual or potential nature at least according to the reasoning reasonably certain will happen? And whether there is a causal relationship (causal verband) between the losses and the enactment of legislation that petitioned to be tested.

61 according to the Government, the Applicant could not be argued that the losses suffered over the constitutional enforceability of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), as well as Section 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD, dan DPRD. Then about the position of the law (legal standing) the applicant will be explained in more detail in the description of the Government, more information will be presented at the next trial or through the Registrar of the Constitutional Court. Nevertheless, the Government handed over entirely to the presiding judge of the Constitution to consider and judge it, whether the applicant has the legal position (legal standing) or not, as specified by article 51 paragraph 1 of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, as well as based on the rulings of the Constitutional Court earlier (vide Verdict Number 006/PUU-III/2005 and decision number 11/PUU-V/2007). III. Government Explanation over the Petition Appealed for Material Tested presiding judge of the Constitutional Court. That in addition to filing a test material, the Applicant also filed Testing Formyl statute number 8 in 2012 about the Election members of Parliament, DPD, and DPRD. The presumption against the applicants, the Government can provide the following information: 1. the test regarding the Arrangements provided for in Article 51 formyl paragraph (2) letter a juncto Article 51A paragraph (3) of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, as amended by law No. 8 year 2012 which States, "the applicant is obliged to clearly outlines that the establishment of the Act does not meet the provisions based on the 1945 Constitution." Article 22A the 1945 Constitution states, "further Provisions concerning the procedures for the formation of the Act be governed by law." 2. According to the Government, so that the tests are related to the formation of formyl legislation has been appropriate or not to the provisions of the Constitution or laws based on 1945-62 the invitation procedures governing the formation of laws-invitations, i.e. Act No. 12 year 2011 about the establishment of Regulations and in testing the Formyl becomes the point of concern is whether the establishment of a law proposed testing formyl has complied with the terms and procedures , as set forth by applicable laws and regulations. 3. According to the Government, the process of drafting the law number 8 in 2012 about the Election members of Parliament, DPD, and LEGISLATORS were in accordance with the principle of the formation of good legislation as well as the material, type, hierarchy, and the material of the charge, and the institutions that make up the. In addition, the applicant in his/her wish not specifically and clearly, in the process, and where the establishment of the law number 8 in 2012 about the Election members of Parliament, DPD, and PARLIAMENT does not meet the provisions of the Constitution of 1945, as well as on the basis of the applicable legislation, which regulates the procedures for the establishment of legislation, namely Act No. 12 year 2011 about the formation of legislation. 4. That against threshold provisions as stated in article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD, and LEGISLATORS, the Government argued that the election of REGIONAL representatives and participants is political party that meets the threshold values of the Parliament (the parliamentary threshold) 2.5% in the 2009 election. Or political parties already have a seat in the House as a representation of the support of the people and political parties that passed the verification at the ELECTION COMMISSION. 5. That the requirements referred to in article 8 paragraph (2) to be the 2014 Election participants are required to meet the retention Election in accordance with law No. 8 year 2012 synchronized Act No. 2 of 2008 about the political parties, as amended by Act No. 2 of 2011 about the change in the law number 2 of 2008 about political parties. It has also been in accordance with the ruling of the Constitutional Court which States that political parties which incorporated the law do not need 63 verified to be legal entities. Thus, the then political parties already have seats in the Parliament, no longer need to be verified in order to become participant of the election. 6. Associated with the formation of the law number 8 in 2012, according to the Government have been considering some of the things that are fundamental, related to the formation of the Act, namely that to elect members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and Representatives of the regional election, the embodiment of popular sovereignty as a means to produce representatives that are aspirational, qualified and responsible, based on Pancasila and the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. That to vote for members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and Representatives of the regional election, the embodiment of popular sovereignty as a means to produce representatives that are aspirational, qualified and responsible, based on Pancasila and the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. That the mandatory Election ensures tersalurkannya voice of the people directly, free, General, secret, honest, and fair. That Act No. 10 of 2008 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives need to be replaced in accordance with the demands and the dynamics of the development of the community. 7. That the issue of quantity value threshold following the election (electoral threshold/ET) as well as the threshold of Parliament (the parliamentary threshold/PT) is the authority of the constituent Act. PT is a minimal level of support must be obtained political party to gain seats in the House of representatives. With regard to article 8 paragraph (1) of law No. 8 year 2012 means that political parties that meet the PT on the last election as part of a general election next year to ET. As such, then the Statute number 8 in 2012 about the Election members of Parliament, DPD, and PARLIAMENT enacted in 2009 as PT ET 2014 with complementary requirements as set


64 in article 8 paragraph (2) of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD, and LEGISLATORS, the Government argued that the election of REGIONAL representatives and participants. 8.8. Related Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, as permitted by the Constitution of article 28J paragraph (2) of the CONSTITUTION 1945 pertaining to be subject to restrictions, set by legislation to ensure recognition and respect upon the rights and freedoms of others, and to meet the demands of a fair Article 28 h, so that paragraph (2) of the Constitution allows the preferential treatment in question. This means, political parties that have seats in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES need not be verified anymore. The provisions of article a quo can overwrite all of the political parties concerned did not qualify if the numbers threshold in the coming Elections. Because the results of an election in which political parties obtained a number of votes which can then be converted into seats, an indication of the main parameters or whether the political parties get popular support significantly or not. The election is the momentum to see such support. Therefore, the provisions of these terms does not constitute a form of discrimination. 9. That the consummation of the system of absolute party carried out in the framework of the Organization of the Government for effective and productive, as well as creating political stability. If the simplification of the party can be realized, it will be created a climate of strong governance, firm, clean, authoritative, accountable, and transparent, so that Indonesia can take advantage of the whole nation for its potential to become a great nation, peace, and dignity. 10. the enactment of related Policy PT nationally are expected to create synergy program run by the Central Government and regions. The fact that occur before a program is often initiated by the Central Government are not in line with the existing policy in the region. This is because each political party representation in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and the REPRESENTATIVES of different background due to the 2009 elections, political parties represented in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES would not necessarily have a representation in the PARLIAMENT, 65 so well otherwise. This greatly influenced the synergy of development programs at the Center and the regions, so that the conduct of the Government less effective. 11. Related to legitimate national ballot that political parties must be obtained to gain seats in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, winning election in a democratic PARLIAMENT, direct, secret, public, free, honest, fair, and thus the achievement of the party obtained through democratic processes that are submitted to the people the sovereign electorate. It likewise as a benchmark, whether political parties become participants of the 2014 Elections had the support of the people. 12. Concerning the constitutionality of article 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD, and DPRD on phrases in obtaining seats members of Parliament, provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota, the Government contends that Article 22E subsection (1) of the 1945 Constitution mandates so that the election was carried out with the participation of the people's existence on the principle of democracy, direct, secret, public, free, honest, and fair. Legislative election, DPD, dan DPRD kabupaten/kota with threshold gains nationally valid votes gave the freedom of political parties to compete healthily in organizing Elections of 2014, to get the voice of the people an easy way to determine which political party elected nationally, to avoid problems of election disputes. It is the legal policy delegated by article 22E paragraph (6) of the Constitution of 1945 as a policy in the implementation of delegated legislation is valid and constitutional Elections as the basis for the policy that mandated Constitution 1945. 13. in accordance with article 1 paragraph (1) of the Act No. 2 2015 States that a political party is an organization that is national, formed by a group of citizens voluntarily on the basis of the similarity of the will and ideals to fight for ideals to fight for and defend the interests of members of the political, community, the nation and the State, as well as maintain integrity SO 66 based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. The spirit requires PT nationally is to form a political party that is national, either in secretarial as well as representation in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, and the REGIONAL district/city. Thus, political parties can effectively fight for and defend the interests of politics both at central level, as well as the region. 14. The Government argued about the variety of settings nationally that it is the delegation by the 1945 Constitution to set up or in legislation in diskrimatif, then the legal threshold of national policy that does not conflict with the Constitution of 1945. 15. The policy threshold nationally listed in section 208 of the Act number 8 in 2012, the related elections by article 22E paragraph (6) of the Constitution of 1945 delegated to the creation of legislation to set it up with the act as well, not in conflict with the Constitution due to the conditions of a quo does not contain elements which are diskrimatif, given that the national threshold policy applies to all political parties to the electoral participants. It applies to all political parties objectively Election participants with the overall legislative candidates, political party of Election participants without exception, and no distinguishing factors, race, religion, gender, and social, and others, referred to the Act 39 of 1999 on HUMAN RIGHTS and the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights. 16. Policy PT nationally in article 208 of the Act 8 in 2012 is not at all ignoring the principles of HUMAN RIGHTS contained in article 28D paragraph (1) and (3) of the Constitution of 1945 because everyone citizens and political parties election participants treated the same and got the same chance, starting the competition in a democratic Election in 2014 which is the needs and interests of the nation of Indonesia.

67 IV. Conclusion based on the above explanation, the Government appealed to the presiding judge of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia that checks, megadili, and disconnect the application for Testing the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives against the 1945 Constitution may provide the following decision. 1. Declare the Applicant has no legal position (legal standing). 2. Refuse the application for testing the Appellant entirely or at least declare the petition of the Applicant is unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). 3. Accept the description of the Government as a whole. 4. Declaring the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and (2), as well as Section 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD, PARLIAMENT does not conflict with the provisions of article paragraph (1), subsection (2), article 22A, article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (3), article 27 paragraph (1), article 28C paragraph (2), section 28D subsection (1), article 28D paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. [2.4] considering that the petition against the Applicant, the House of representatives delivered a verbal description of the Council July 31, 2012, and affidavits without the date July 2012 received the clerk of the Court on 9 August 2012 which substantially States the following: a. the provisions of Act No. 8 in 2012 about the Election members of Parliament, and the PARLIAMENT petitioned DPD testing against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. In this case the Applicant submits the test upon article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet the threshold gains voice at the previous Election


68 or "as well as Article 208 along with the phrase" ... Provincial and REGIONAL district/city "law number 8 in 2012 that is considered contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. B. rights and/or constitutional authority deems the Applicant had been harmed by the enactment of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD and DPRD. The Applicant in the application for a quo argued that rights of konstitusionalnya have been harmed and violated or at least potential according to the reasoning reasonably incurred losses by ensuring the enactment of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) as well as Section 208 of the Act number 8 in 2012 on anyway as follows: a. That the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet the threshold of limit the acquisition of previous elections or votes "as well as Article 208 of the ACT at least legislative elections along 208 Article the phrase". .. LEGISLATORS and Provincial district/city "is clearly detrimental to at least detrimental to The Applicant since it set up provisions that are very unfair and discriminatory to the applicant as a political party, the participants of the last election (election 2009) that does not meet the threshold of valid votes nationwide gains in the next election the membership (2014), namely through the factual verification requirements that are very heavily by the ELECTION COMMISSION , otherwise deeply unfair and discriminatory political parties just assign participants last election that meets the threshold of valid votes nationally automatically set as a participant in the next elections without passing through factual verification, it is clearly contrary to article 27 paragraph (1), article 28D, paragraph (1) of article 28 paragraph (3), and article 28I paragraph 2 of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; b. that with the enactment of Article a quo, this sign does not result in the Appellant in factual verification by the Election Commission, therefore the Applicant would have deterred the rights konstitusionalnya in terms of advancing themselves in fighting for their rights collectively to build community, nation and State as guaranteed by article 27, paragraph (1) of article 28, article 69 28C subsection (2), section 28D subsection (1) and paragraph (3) and article 28I paragraph (2) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; c. that with the enactment of the provisions of article 208 of the ACT the Legislative Elections contrary to the opening paragraph of the 4th Constitution, article 1, paragraph (2) and article 28C paragraph (2) of the Constitution, that the provision of a quo of eliminating popular sovereignty and political representation of the people, given by the increase in the threshold figure of Parliament be 3.5% and the enforcement of clear national flat will eliminate the principle of popular sovereignty, will eliminate the voice of the people as voters in the election and gave birth to the members of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES PARLIAMENT as well as Provincial, Kabupaten/Kota are not selected based on the people's choice, because there is a disjuncture between the people with the choice of representing the people political representation then the people who became the main goal of the election will not be achieved. C. Description of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Against the evidence of the Applicant as set forth in the petition for a quo, the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES in the delivery of its views in advance outlining the legal position concerning (legal standing) can be explained as follows: 1. The position of the law (Legal Standing) The applicant's Qualifications to be met by the applicant as a Party have been regulated in the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1) of LAW Number 24 year 2003 on the Constitutional Court (hereafter abbreviated as constitutional court ACT) , which States that "the Applicant is a party which considers the right and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of the Act, namely: a. the individual citizen of Indonesia; b. the unity of Community law all still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principle of the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia regulated in legislation; c. a public or private legal entities; or d. the institutions of State. " Rights and/or constitutional authority in question the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1), reaffirmed in the explanation, that "the definition of" constitutional rights "are the rights subject to the legislation of the Republic of Indonesia Base 70 of 1945." Provision of an explanation of article 51 paragraph (1) confirms this, that only the rights explicitly regulated in the Constitution of 1945 that included "constitutional rights". Therefore, according to the ACT on the Constitutional Court, in order that a person or a party may be accepted as an applicant who has the position of law (legal standing) in the application for testing legislation against the CONSTITUTION in 1945, then the first must explain and prove: a. Credentials as the applicant in the application for a quo as stipulated in article 51 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court; b. rights and/or authority referred to in konstitusionalnya "explanation of article 51 paragraph (1)" is considered to have been harmed by the enactment of the legislation. Regarding the constitutional parameters of loss, the Constitutional Court has given understanding and limitation of losses arising from the constitutional enactment of a law must meet the five terms (vide the verdict Matter Number 006/PUU-III/2005 and Number 011/PUU-V/2007) is as follows: a. the existence of rights and/or constitutional authority the applicant granted by the CONSTITUTION of 1945; b. that rights and/or constitutional authority the Applicant is deemed by the applicant have been wronged by an act that was tested; c. that the loss of rights and/or constitutional authority the applicant in question are specific (Special) and actual or potential nature at least according to the reasoning reasonably certain will happen; d. the existence of a causal relationship (causal verband) between the losses and the enactment of legislation which petitioned testing; e. of the possibility that by dikabulkannya the petition then loss and/or constitutional authority who postulated it will not or no longer occur.

71 In the fifth such terms are not met by the applicant in the case of testing the ACT a quo, then the applicant has no legal position qualification (legal standing) as a party to the applicant. Responding to the plea of the Petitioner a quo, the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES holds that the Applicant must be able to prove first whether the applicant as a party which considers the right and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed over the enactment of provisions that petitioned to be tested, especially in the presence of reconstruct the loss against the right and/or authority to konstitusionalnya as the impact of the passage of provisions that petitioned to be tested. Against the position of the law (legal standing), the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES handed over entirely to the Chairman/the Constitutional Court Judges Assembly mulya to consider and assess whether the applicant has the legal position (legal standing) or not, as regulated by article 51 paragraph (1) of the law on the Constitutional Court and on the basis of the ruling of the Constitutional Court Docket Number 006/PUU-III/2005 and Number 011/PUU-V/2007DPR handed over entirely to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Judges Assembly/to consider and assess whether the applicant has the legal position (legal standing) as regulated by article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT on the Constitutional Court and on the basis of the ruling of the Constitutional Court Docket Number 006/PUU-III/2005 and Number 011/PUU-V/2007 2. Testing the law number 8 Of year 2012 general election, DPD and DPR members of PARLIAMENT Against the application for testing article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) as well as Section 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, LEGISLATORS and deliver a description as follows: application material testing Against article 8 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" and article 8 paragraph (2) along with the phrase "political parties that do not meet the threshold gains voice at the previous Election or the election ACT "of the legislature, the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES delivered a description as follows:


72 a. that as an attempt of creating a presidential system that effectively and efficiently with some basis should we indulge, then set several conditions which is a refinement of the previous provisions set forth in ACT No. 10 of 2008. To note that a presidential system principles expressed Lijphart is as follows: 1. the stability of the Executive that is based on a certain presidential term (fixed term); 2. the election of the head of Government by the people is considered more legitimate; and 3. that separation of powers means that the Government is constrained so that individual protection occurs over the tyranny of the Government. b. that with some basic, then forming the legislation sought to bring closer a presidential system in order to make progress in Indonesia are better. It is reflected in the provisions of article 8 paragraph (2) that the political parties will follow the elections must meet a number of requirements. Realize that there is the phrase "... that did not meet the threshold gains the previous Election or vote on a new political party" which was originally conceived as a mechanism of reward and punishment for any political party that will join the election. Aware also that the threshold is not the only way to simplify the political parties, but the threshold should also be recognized as one of the most widely used in many countries to limit the number of political parties that could sit in the Parliament and in law No. 8 year 2012 is one of the requirements for political parties to follow the next election which is reflected in the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT No. 8 in 2012. The determination of threshold is an electoral system engineering in order to create a more qualified Election System. The HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, as the institutions forming the Act has the authority to make policy (open legal policy) which is not contrary to the Constitution. Ought to be realized by all political parties that the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) of LAW No. 8 year 2012 does not constitute discriminatory provisions but instead is a weight requirement 73 political parties to be able to participate in the next elections and that provision applies to all political parties. Because a party is not easy to escape the numbers PT if not get popular support in the elections. A political party is not enough only with a capital of loloas administrative terms to join the elections, but the terms of the rakyatlah the most important support recognition. It looks real in terms of the escape PT. c. the objections related to the applicant by the enactment of the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) is considered prejudicial and discriminatory, and would give rise to legal uncertainty and not the same treatment in law for all political parties so that the Applicant would have deterred the rights konstitusionalnya in terms of advancing themselves in fighting for their rights collectively to build community , can be explained that the actual provisions of article a quo applies to all political parties concerned did not qualify if the numbers threshold in the coming Elections. The reason, the results of an election in which political parties obtained a number of votes which can then be converted into seats is an indication of the main parameters or whether the political parties have the support of the people is significantly or not. The election is the momentum to see such support. Therefore the provisions of these terms does not constitute a form of discrimination. d. these terms also noticed that there are no restrictions for every citizen to form political parties and to participate in the next elections. Because, it is already regulated in the ACT on political parties with a number of requirements and this Election ACT set about a political party can vote in the election with a number of requirements. e. As an explanation should also realize that the political party that meets the threshold at the previous Election, must also submit a number of documents as listed in article 8 paragraph (2) of the ACT a quo as a manifestation of the seriousness and commitment if the political parties want to join the election again or not, although in article 8 paragraph (1) of the ACT a quo mentioned are automatically set as a participant of the election.

74 However should be assembled with the provisions of article 5 paragraph (1) of the ACT a quo which States must gave it a number of documents referred to in Article 15 of the ACT a quo with differences only on article 15 letter f of ACT a quo are replaced with proof of previous elections vote tally that reaches the threshold and the number of seats in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and gain PARLIAMENT issued by the ELECTION COMMISSION. f. need for verification As against political parties as mentioned in article 16 is meant as a form of seriousness and accuracy to avoid repeated various practices in 2009 where the ELECTION COMMISSION often find a fictitious Office and fictitious membership when verification. It is also a process that is fair to see how the existence of the political party during the post-war organization of the elections. It was in an effort to improve the institutional capacity of a political party that not only work towards the Elections only. g. to know that all the factions declared explicitly so that there is no discrimination in the process of membership elections. However must be given some sort of reward for the political party that had already reached the threshold in the previous elections with a fixed range of administrative evidence accompanied through the submission of a number of requirements to the ELECTION COMMISSION as mentioned in advance. It became one of the emphasis in the process of discussion of the Bill on Elections by new Godard? that to follow the elections must meet a number of requirements both for the political party that participated earlier Elections or political party that is completely new for the sake of realizing a quality Election, democratic, and accountable. The next process is to verify the certainty of the readiness of the Lebanese political party in following the elections and agreed that the stage should already be completed 15 months before the vote with the intention of providing a pretty good party prepare yourself and give enough time for people to get to know the party participants legislative elections. Thus it will be going on the condition get to know each other and in turn happens "chemistry" between 75 participants of the Centre and the general election voters in order to realize a better representative democracy; h. PARLIAMENT holds that the provision requirements for prospective participants of the elections including the verification process is a form of the arrangements for determining the qualifications of candidates in general elections is better than the previous provisions. That means, that provision is the refinement of the provisions of ACT No. 10 of 2008, so hopefully the existence of better preparedness of potential participants in the Elections following the next elections, including the party's previous election participants either reach a certain threshold or which do not reach the threshold. Application material testing against Article 208 along with the phrase "... Provincial and district/city of LEGISLATIVE Act legislative elections, the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES delivered a description as follows a. Related to the mind of the Applicant that States with enacted provisions of article a quo was correctly the people's choice, especially in the regions, because the voters to be represented in the representative institutions is not always the same as the options on the central level, can be explained that against the birth of the provisions of article 208 which read "political party Electoral Participants must meet a threshold of sound acquisition at least 3.5% (three comma five percent) of the total number of valid votes a national basis for the determination of earnings included in the seat of a member of Parliament, provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS district/city ", is the result of REPRESENTATIVES Plenary Meeting at the time of decision making level II through a voting mechanism. b. in fact, the article is an attempt to increase the institutional capacity of the nonprofit national political party. It is absolutely not castrate the party presence is local. But in the setting of retention elections in law number 8 in 2012, are a number of requirements which led to the creation of the nonprofit national political party such as the number of governance at the provincial level that should be 100% (one hundred percent) or in the rest of the province,


76 and the requirement for 75% (seventy five percent) counties in the province concerned. Understanding the local party is like that found in Aceh province which is set by lex specialists in law number 11 of 2006 about the Government of Aceh. In article 1 point 2 of LAW number 11 of 2006 about the Government of Aceh referred to the definition of a local political party, namely: "local political party is a political organization formed by a group of citizens residing in Aceh Indonesia voluntarily on the basis of the equation of the will and ideals to fight for the interests of the members, the community, the nation and the DPRA member countries through the election/DPRK, Governor/Deputy Governor , Regent/Vice Regent, and the Mayor/Deputy Mayor ". Further detail is set out in Chapter XI of the ACT number 11 in 2006. Against the terms of the threshold for local political parties in Aceh, regulated in article 90 which reads: "to be able to follow the next general election, local political party electoral participants must: a. obtain at least 5% (five percent) number of seats DPRA; or b. obtain at least 5% (five percent) of the number of seats the DPRK spread at least ½ in (half) the number of districts/cities in Aceh. With the provision of article 90 is seen clearly that specifically set on the threshold of a local political party in Aceh and it became the legal basis for local political parties in Aceh. While on the other (provinces) have yet to be arranged, so this early legislation to create a national party that is not meaningful people's choice correctly in the area because of the provisions of the terms of the Centre to participate the elections also are nationwide. c. the enforcement threshold this is the national nature of the endeavor to PARLIAMENT along with the Government in creating harmony and alignment between the Central and regional levels of the Parliament. Looking to experience in 2009 in which many political parties in the PARLIAMENT that does not have a representative in the House 77 often blockage of the channel the aspirations are inten over various issues at the local level. Not to mention the exuberance of the practice of "less commendable" at the time of the election of the head of the area eventually leading to new issues. This provision is expected to improve the situation in the region, so that it will present alignment and continuity of Government setup in both the central level as well as the region. d. in the process of discussion, PARLIAMENT consciously discussed that applying this threshold has a variety of empirical fact let alone konkesuensi 2009 election results there are a number of political parties that did not reach the threshold 2.5% (two comma five percent) became the winner in several districts. However, PARLIAMENT also sought in order for the various other issues that arose in the area must be bridged became national issues through a system of a national party that is. Therefore encourages the presence of new Godard? political party that is national in the context of the passage of a presidential system of Government in the framework of the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. e. at the time of the discussion at the level of the Working Committee (Panja), the question of the application of the threshold be one process of discussion that takes time enough. This is because the intention was for the implementation of the initial threshold is reached parliamentary system efficiency and effectiveness. Moreover, at the time of the application of threshold under law No. 10 of 2008, this effort seems to be a "PR" that the application of the threshold applicable to the 2009 election (only at the level of PARLIAMENT) will proceed with the application of the threshold down to the local level. This intention was subsequently continued by the HOUSE'S new Godard? in discussing the Bill on general elections which produced the ACT number 8 in 2012, that the application of the threshold will apply nationwide start of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial, or LOCAL County/City). Discussion about this is a form of seriousness in creating a better election system and encourage political parties to work better in the interest of the people much that people's trust in an increasingly gaining election. Our expectations so that people are not confused by too large number 78 political parties as the underlying current and pushing every political party Electoral participants to consolidate each activity and program and submit it to the people in the campaign. We do not want a number "Golput" increases in 2014 Elections and further due to growing political party he held not by the people. In fact, the presence of political parties is an inevitability in democratic system chosen by the nation of Indonesia, although the party system that we own cherished beliefs are moderate multi-party party system. It is because Indonesia is a nation that has a relatively heterogeneous social segregation is high enough. However, the real purpose of the end is the same, namely the creation of a State and a fair and prosperous nation for his people. f. subsequent Process did not reach a acclaimed cornerstones in the process of discussion at the talks, the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Chamber and subsequently discussed in the forum the lobby at the time of the Meeting Plenary takes place and then was born a formula about the application of threshold nationally. At the time of Plenary Meetings, delivered in this formulation was later refined and became the voting material in order to produce a decision that will be selected because there are still differences of views of implementation threshold nationally. The result was the application of threshold nationally as listed in section 208. g. with the presence of provisions of article 208 is expected all political parties election participants prepare better and was able to become a political party that is national, as the requirements in article 8. h. treshhold related, need to bear in mind that refers to the decision of the Constitutional Court in the case number 3/PUU-VII/2009 about testing Act No. 10 of 2008 General Election of members of Parliament, ELECTED to PARLIAMENT and against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, the Court held: a) Against kebijkan ET, the Court never disconnect the test application ET listed in article 9 paragraph (1) of LAW No. 12 of 2003 presented by 13 political parties Election 2004 79 Participants did not follow ET (partial the political parties also apply in the case of number 3/PUU-VII/2009) with similar arguments and ask the experts thus propose ET replaced by PT. Court ruling declaring the petition was denied on account, among others, that the policy was not discriminatory because ET applies to all political parties, it is the policy of common law (legal policy) that is mandated by article 22E paragraph (6) of the Constitution which is very open : "further provisions about elections is regulated by the Act" so that, according to the Constitutional Court, both policies equally PT ET konstitusionalitasnya (vide Verdict number 16/PUU-V/2007 dated October 23, 2007) [3.16 letter b]; b) considering that thus it can be concluded that the legislative body can determine a threshold as a legal policy for the existence of political parties either shaped or PT. ET policy like this is allowed by the Constitution as a political party because of the fact that simplification of the existence of the law on the system of Nationality or Political laws associated are indeed meant to make such limitations to the extent allowed by the Constitution. About how the magnitude of the threshold number is to become an authority forming legislation to specify one without may were interfered by the Court for not incompatible with political rights, sovereignty of the people and rationality. Thus, according to the Court, the provisions regarding the existence of PT as regulated in article 202 paragraph (1) of ACT No. 10 of 2008 did not violate the Constitution because the provisions of the Act a quo has given opportunities for every citizen to form a political party, but at the same time selected and bounded rationally through provisions of the PT to be able to have a representative in the House. Wherever in this world always gives the Constitution authorizes the creation of legislation to determine the limitations in the legislation for the implementation of the people's political rights [3.19];


80 that in addition to constitutionally views, theoretical, juridical and as outlined above, is related to testing the material provisions of article 208 Article 208 and explanation of LAW number 8 in 2012 about the Election members of Parliament, DPD and DPRD seen need to look at the background of the formulation of the legislation a quo in Tractate meeting discussion draft legislation a quo which we pass on as an attachment that is inseparable from this description. Description of the HOUSE is delivered to be consideration for the Constitutional Court to check, disconnect, and adjudicate the matter a quo and can give a verdict as follows: 1. Accept the Description of the HOUSE as a whole; 2. Declares article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) and section 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES and not contrary to the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 3. Declares article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) and section 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of Parliament, DPD and DPRD have force of law remain binding. [2.5] considering that the applicant had delivered a written conclusion dated 8 August 2012 are received at the Registrar of the Court on August 10, 2012 which substantially fixed at the original establishment; [2.6] considering that to shorten the blurb in this ruling, everything that happens in the trial simply appointed in the news events of the trial, which is a single entity which was not separated by this ruling; 3. LEGAL CONSIDERATION [3.1] considering that the goal and purpose of the petition a quo is to test the constitutionality of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Number 5316 Indonesia Repulik, hereinafter referred to as ACT 8/2012), namely: 81 (i) article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrase , "who meet the threshold gaining votes from the total number of valid votes nationally"; (ii) article 8 paragraph (2) along with the phrase, "a political party that does not meet the threshold gains voice at the previous Election or"; (iii) Article 208 which States, "political party Electoral Participants must meet a threshold of sound acquisition at least 3.5% (three comma five percent) of the total number of valid votes nationally to be included in the determination of the acquisition of the Chair members of Parliament, provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota" or at least all the phrases, "provincial and REGIONAL district/town"; against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (hereinafter the Constitution); [3.2] considering that before considering the subject matter of the petition, the Constitutional Court (hereinafter the Court) in advance will take into account: a. the authority of the Court to adjudicate a petition for quo; b. the position of the law (legal standing) the Applicant to apply for a quo; The authority of the Court [3.3] considering that under article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution, article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of the ACT the COURT as modified by law No. 8 year 2011 about the changes to the Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia number 70 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5226), as well as to article 29 paragraph (1) letter a LAW Number 48 in 2009 about the Power of Justice (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia year 2009 Number 157 Additional Sheets, the Republic of Indonesia Number 5076, hereinafter referred to as ACT Number 48/2009), one of the powers of the Constitutional Court is to adjudicate on the first level and 82 last award is final to examine legislation against the Constitution; [3.4] considering that the applicant's plea is to test the constitutionality of norms phrases contained in article 8 paragraph (1), article 8 paragraph (2), as well as Article 208 overall or at least on certain phrases against the Constitution, which became one of the Court's authority, so therefore the Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition for quo; The position of the law (Legal Standing) the Applicant [3.5] considering that under article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT the COURT along with his explanation, which can apply for testing legislation against the Constitution are those who consider the rights and/or konstitusionalnya the authority granted by the CONSTITUTION of 1945 harmed by enactment of a statute, namely: a. the individual citizen of Indonesia (including groups of people having the same interests); b. the unity of Community law all still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principle of the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia regulated in legislation; c. a public or private legal entities; or d. the State institutions; Thus, the applicant in testing legislation against the Constitution should explain and prove in advance: a. the applicant as referred to in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT the COURT; b. loss of rights and/or constitutional authority given by the Constitution arising from the enactment of law petitioned testing; [3.6] Considering that Court since the ruling of the Constitutional Court the number 006/PUU-III/2005, dated 31 May 2005, and the ruling of the Constitutional Court number 11/PUU-V/2007, dated 20 September 2007, and a further 83 Awards held that the loss of rights and/or constitutional authority as intended by article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT the COURT must meet five criteria, namely: a. the existence of rights and/or constitutional authority the applicant granted by the Constitution; b. rights and/or the constitutional authority by the applicant are considered impaired by the enactment of legislation which petitioned testing; c. the constitutional harm must be specific (Special) and the actual potential or at least according to the reasoning reasonably certain will happen; d. the existence of a causal relationship (causal verband) between the losses in question and the enactment of legislation which petitioned testing; e. of the possibility that by dikabulkannya the petition then postulated that such a constitutional harm will not or no longer occur; [3.7] considering that based on the descriptions as at paragraph [2.2] and [3] above, then the Court will consider the legal position concerning (legal standing) of the Applicant in the application for a quo as follows: [3.8] considering that in anyway the Applicant, namely the National Awakening Party of scholars (PKNU), Crescent Star Party (PBB), the Indonesia justice and Unity Party (PKPI), functional party (PKPB) Matter, the party of National Unity (VAT) The Independence Party, National Populist Fortress Party (PNBK Indonesia) Indonesia, the National Democratic Party (PDK), Indonesia Unity Party (PSI), the party of the prosperous Indonesia Party sovereignty, (PIS), party of democratic unity of Indonesia (PKDI), workers and employers party Indonesia (PPPI), prosperous peace party (PDS), the renewal Democratic Party (PDP), the archipelago Republic party, the youth party Indonesia (PPI), in postulates as a body of public law (political party) passed by the Minister of law and human rights (vide Evidence P-3a up to evidence of the P-3 l) that have constitutional rights regulated in the Constitution 1945. the constitutional rights have been harmed due to the enactment of the provisions of article 84, paragraphs, sections and section or subsection of the Act a quo, which appealed by the Claimant to be tested. After observing the evidence submitted concerning the legal position of the applicants each Applicant, the Court found the fact that the Applicant is a legal entity that aims to fight for the interests of the public as well as the political party Electoral participants in 2009, combined the political party Electoral participants in 2009, and/or a change of political party Electoral participants in 2009; [3.9] considering that having regard to the potential consequences experienced by the Applicant related the existence of the article, paragraph, section or article, passage of the ACT a quo requested testing, especially the potential dihalanginya of the applicant to be participants of the electoral legislative by 2014, according to the Court the Applicant qualify the position of law (legal standing) to apply for the test Act a quo; [3.10] considering that because of the Court is authorized to adjudicate the petition a quo, and the applicant has the legal position (legal standing), then the Court will consider the subject matter of the petition; The subject matter of the petition of the Court's Opinion [3.11] considering that the subject matter of the petition of the Applicant is testing the constitutionality of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316), namely: (i) article 8 paragraph (1) along the phrases, "that meets the threshold of gaining votes from the total number of valid votes nationally";


85 (ii) article 8 paragraph (2) along with the phrase, "a political party that does not meet the threshold gains voice at the previous Election or"; (iii) Article 208 which States, "political party Electoral Participants must meet a threshold of sound acquisition at least 3.5% (three comma five percent) of the total number of valid votes nationally to be included in the determination of the acquisition of the Chair members of Parliament, provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota" or at least all the phrases, "provincial and REGIONAL district/town"; against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (hereinafter the Constitution), namely: article 22E subsection (1) which States, "the general election held in direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years"; Article 22E paragraph (3) which States, "the participants of the general election to choose members of the House of representatives and the regional people's representative Council members are political party"; Article 27 paragraph (1) which States, "all citizens its position in law and Government and must respect the law and Government with no kecualinya"; Article 28 which States, "freedom of Association and Assembly, pull out the mind with spoken and written and so on are defined by law"; Article 28C paragraph (2) which States, "everyone has the right to promote himself in the fight for the right collectively to build community, nation, and his country"; Article 28D paragraph (1) 86 which States, "everyone is entitled to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law"; Article 28D paragraph (3) which States, "every citizen has the right to obtain equal opportunities in the Government"; Article 28I paragraph (2) which States, "everyone has the right to be free from discriminatory treatment on the basis of anything and is entitled to protection against discriminatory treatment"; [3.12] considering that the elections (elections), in Indonesia, democracy is a means for the people (voters) to choose the people who will occupy a certain political position, especially for Indonesia is the President and Vice President as well as representatives of the people who will sit in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES seat, DPD, Provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS Kabupaten/Kota. Constitution confirms that the election system is implemented in the country Indonesia is election system which is nationality. This means that the political parties have a dominant position in the recruitment process for the filling of political offices; [3.13] considering that since the time of the struggle for freedom, the proclamation of the independence of Indonesia, and retained to the present day, the history of the struggle of the nation of Indonesia could not be released from the existence of the Organization and/or political parties. Regardless of the choice of ideological and moral attitude of political parties and individuals involved in it, the existence of political parties in each era bangsa-negara Indonesia shows the strategic position and the important role of political parties for the progress of the nation and the State. According to the Court, the existence of certain political parties that are inconsistent with the ideals of the nation and the country in the long history of the nation of Indonesia, not thus means the political party as a political organization entities be unimportant and unnecessary; [3.14] considering that the Court agreed with the opinion of the experts concerning the functions of the political party as an organization fighting for an ideology of 87 in the country of democracy. Political parties have at least four functions, namely i) party as a means of political communication; II) party as a means of political socialization; III) political party as a means of recruitment; and iv) party as a means of managing conflicts. The fourth function, if utilized, ideally, will be able to work together as one flow with elections in fill political offices; that surely will generate choices and political policies that comply with the aspiration/will of the people. To run the four functions of the political party to the maximum/ideal, according to the Court, required a condition that gives the space for freedom to establish or dissolve political parties; [3.15] considering that the freedom in a country of law certainly should be framed in a legislation for the sake of guaranteeing, among other things, the similarities of the position in law [vide article 27 paragraph (1) of the Constitution] as well as the freedom of Association and Assembly [vide Article 28 Constitution]. However, according to the Court, as defined by the Constitution, freedom, either as a concept or action, is not without limits. Paradoxical in nature, whereas freedom unleashed without limit will damage/destroy freedom itself. Freedom most people or groups always have the possibility to be restricted solely for the sake of honor and maintain the freedom of some people or any other group [vide Article 28J paragraph (2) of the Constitution]. [3.16] considering that according to the Court of all the political parties to be established in Indonesia is intended to follow the elections and put representatives of his Deputy in the Parliament, Provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS Kabupaten/Kota. The fact of the limited number of seats in the institutions of representative will also limit political party which can put its representatives. The State ultimately makes the aspirations, diversity is directly proportional to the number of political parties, cannot be represented completely, due to the fact there are only a few political parties can put his Deputy in the representative institutions. Thus, it should be noted that 88 was a small voter support to certain political parties might hinder the representation of voters in question in the House as well as in PARLIAMENT. Based on these considerations, according to the Court, the politics of law with regard to restrictions on political parties is a natural because of the large number of political parties that are not effectively had the support of the community, so that the political parties can not put his Deputy in the agency representative is reasonable when the political party in question should merge with other party sepandangan/in line with it; [3.17] considering that in the limit the number of political parties, especially those that will follow the elections, forming the Act doesn't do the restrictions by setting the number of political parties as participants of the election, but, among other things by determining the administrative requirements as set forth in section 8 of ACT 8/2012. No amount of dibatasinya political party as participant of the election that will follow the general election is an embodiment of the meaning of common law in accommodating the freedom of citizens to Association and Assembly, while also indicating that all citizens have the same right to establish or join a specific political party, of course after fulfilling the terms in accordance with the legislation in force. On the basis of such understanding, according to the Court, the Act of composing laws that limit the number of political parties election participants with no mention of the number of party participants of Elections is the right policy choices and not contrary to the Constitution because such restrictions not specified by the legislation but rather the shaper is determined by the people who have the freedom to determine his choice naturally. Testing the constitutionality of article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012 [3.18] considering that in legislation in Indonesia, the Court inventory two stages for political parties to be able to follow the elections, namely the stage of the establishment of political parties and political party participation stage in the general election. The stage of establishment or


89 the formation of political parties is regulated by Act No. 2 of 2008 on political parties as amended by Act No. 2 of 2011 about the change in the law number 2 of 2008 about political parties. The stage of registration as a participant in an election governed by statute number 8 in 2012 about the Election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and Representatives of the region. From these two laws that regulate the stages, according to the Court, there is a will of the constituent Act for doing a simplification of the political parties. In addition, the simplification of the political parties is done by determining the compliance threshold gains votes (parliamentary threshold or PT) at the previous general election, as a condition to be met by political parties to follow the general election [vide article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012] and determine that old political party that does not meet the threshold of the sound as well as the acquisition of new political party must meet certain requirements in order to become participant of general election [vide article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012]. The provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012, according to the Court, does not meet the principle of Justice for political party long because at the time of verification to become participants in the 2009 general election, all administrative requirements already met by all political parties Election participants in 2009, so it's not right if a political party at the general election in 2009 has been declared eligible, however at the next general election are required to qualify the sound earnings threshold , or if the political party in question does not meet the threshold, are required to meet the requirements of a different political party Electoral participants in 2009. Such provisions, according to the Court, does not meet the principle of fairness because it imposes different requirements for parties who follow a kontestasi; [3.19] considering that on the basis of the above considerations, according to the Court, the fulfillment of the threshold gaining votes in the general election in 2009 could not serve as the only provisions on condition or criteria in the old political party participation as a participant in the elections of 90 by 2014. Because the provisions regarding the terms or the criteria in law 10/2008 different from the provisions regarding the terms or the criteria in law 8/2012 that is the basis of organizing the elections of 2014. Thus, even though the Applicant is only asking for the abolition of the phrase "that meet the threshold of gaining votes from the number of valid votes nationally" contained in article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012, but according to the Court the injustice thus contained in the overall article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012. There are also inequities on explanations of article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012. The last thing is based on the consideration that there is no explanation of an article that can stand on its own, so the explanation of article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012 should follow the verdict regarding the article which he described; Testing the constitutionality of article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012 [was 3.20] Whereas, article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012 determines that a political party that does not meet the threshold of gaining votes in the previous election, and a new political party to be participants of the elections must meet certain requirements. After juxtaposing Article 8 of Act No. 10 of 2008 with the article 8 of ACT 8/2012 concerning the requirements of the political parties become participants of the election, the Court's finding of fact of law regarding these terms as follows: article 8 of ACT 10/2008 "(1) a political party may be eligible after the Election Participants: a. be a legal entity in accordance with the law on political parties; b. have a stewardship in 2/3 (two thirds) of the total number of provinces; c. have a stewardship in 2/3 (two thirds) of the total number of districts/cities in the province in question; d. include at least 30% (thirty perseratus) representation of women in the management of political party central level; e. has members at least 1,000 (one thousand) people or 1/1,000 (one thousandths of an) of the population in every political party governance as stated on the letter b and the letter c as evidenced by possession of the card Member; f. have the remain for stewardship Office as on the letter b and the letter c; and g. coined the name and the image of political parties to the ELECTION COMMISSION.

91 (2) of the political party Electoral Participants in previous Elections can become a Participant of the election at the next elections. " Article 8 of ACT 8/2012 "(1) a political party in the last election Election Participants that meet the threshold gaining votes from the total number of valid votes nationally designated as the political party Electoral Participants at the next election. (2) political party that does not meet the threshold gains the previous Election or vote on a new political party could become eligible after the Election Participants: a. be a legal entity in accordance with the law on political parties; b. have a stewardship across the province; c. have a stewardship in 75% (seventy five percent) of the total number of districts/cities in the province in question; d. have stewardship at 50% (fifty percent) of the total number of districts in the respective district/city; e. include at least 30% (thirty percent) of the representation of women in the management of political party central level; f. have members at least 1,000 (one thousand) people or 1/1,000 (one thousandths of an) of the population in the management of political parties as stated on the letter c as evidenced by possession of the card Member; g. stewardship remains to have offices at the Central, provincial, and district/city until the last stage of the election; h. filing a name, symbol, and image of political parties to the ELECTION COMMISSION; and i. submit account number funds election campaign on behalf of a political party to the ELECTION COMMISSION. " From the persandingan, a very prominent legal fact that there is a requirement to be met by political parties to follow the legislative elections of 2009 turned out to be different from the requirements for legislative elections by 2014. The requirement for becoming participant of elections for political party 2014 even more weight when compared with the requirements to be met by a new political party in the legislative elections in 2009. Thus it is not fair when a political party has escaped to become participants in the 2009 general election need not be verified anymore to be able to follow an election in 2014 as a new political party, while political parties that do not meet the PT must follow the verification with the heavier terms. PT from the beginning was not intended as one of the conditions to be 92 next Election participants [vide Article 1 point 27, article 8 paragraph (2) and article 202, paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008], but is the threshold for a party political Election participants to put its members in the House; [3.22] considering that the Court can understand the meaning of common law for the conduct of political parties number of simplification, but simplification can not be done with the enacting terms different to their respective political parties. Simplification of the political parties can be done by specifying the specific administrative terms to follow the elections, but those terms should be enforced equally for all the political parties that will be the participants of the election, without exception. Impose different terms to participants of an kontestasi (the general election) the same is not equal treatment or treatment differently (unequal treatment) that is contrary to article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Constitution. Thus, according to the Court, to all the political parties should put in place the same requirements for a political kontestasi or in the same general election, namely the elections of 2014; [3.22] considering that the Applicant, related article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012, just invoke the omission of the phrase "political parties that do not meet the threshold gains voice at the previous Election or" but for the sake of Justice and equality before the law's position, according to a Court petition for the Applicant may be granted with the accommodating interests or the existence of a new political party which will follow the legislative elections by 2014; That eliminates a different treatment in the general election have a sense, a political party that does not meet the threshold gains votes in previous elections must not be treated differently by the political party which can meet the requirements of a sound acquisition threshold at the previous general election. Based on the fundamental equation of the position in law and Government, new political party also should not be treated differently by the old political parties (following the general election in 2009),


93 or if a political party is certain conditions, then the other political parties should also be subject to the same terms. To achieve equality of each political party, there are two solutions that can be taken that is, first, it equates the terms of membership of political parties between Elections Election participants 2009 participants of elections and political parties by 2014, or both, require an entire political party which will follow elections in 2014 with the requirements specified in the new legislation a quo. In this case, for the sake of legal certainty, the Court determined that in order to achieve equal treatment and fair that the whole political party participants must follow the 2014 Election verification. With the spirit that is in line with the intention of forming legislation, for the sake of simplification of the political parties, according to the Court, the terms become participants of the elections provided for in article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012 must be imposed to all the political parties that will follow the general election 2014 without exception; [3.23] considering that on the basis of the considerations, although the Applicant in petitumnya just begging for deletion of the phrase "political parties that do not meet tally thresholds earlier elections or votes" in article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012, but according to the Court, in order to satisfy the equations of rationality and justice, which should be abolished is the phrase "who did not meet the threshold of gaining votes in previous Elections or a new political party" in article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012. Therefore, according to the Court, article 8 paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012 read more into: (1) a political party may be eligible after the Election Participants: a. be a legal entity in accordance with the law on political parties; b. have a stewardship across the province; c. have a stewardship in 75% (seventy five percent) of the total number of districts/cities in the province in question; d. have stewardship at 50% (fifty percent) of the total number of districts in the respective district/city; e. include at least 30% (thirty percent) of the representation of women in the management of political party central level;

94 f. has members at least 1,000 (one thousand) people or 1/1,000 (one thousandths of an) of the population in the management of political parties as stated on the letter c as evidenced by possession of the card Member; g. stewardship remains to have offices at the Central, provincial, and district/city until the last stage of the election; h. filing a name, symbol, and image of political parties to the ELECTION COMMISSION; and i. submit account number funds election campaign on behalf of a political party to the ELECTION COMMISSION; Testing the constitutionality of article 208 of the ACT 8/2012 [3.24] considering that before considering the subject matter of the petition of the Applicant related to article 208 of the ACT 8/2012, the Court looked at the need to assert things that are a staple of the Court's consideration of the award of case Numbers 22-24/PUU-VI/2008 dated December 23, 2008, as follows: "in the life of any country that reveals itself as a democratic State of law and democracy which is based on the law , will always happen attraction between two interests are equally fundamental, namely the importance to establish laws (legislation) in order to guarantee and ensure orderly law works in the community, as well as to protect the interests of the Community (General) and the interest to safeguard the rights or freedom of the individual (individual liberty) as inherent elements; The consequences of a democratic legal State and democracy are based on the law, as defined by article 1 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Constitution, not only means that the process of the establishment of the legal and material charge (in casu legislation) must heed the principles of democracy, but it also means that practices democracy must be subject to the principle of legal State (rechtsstaat, rule of law) that puts the Constitution as the Supreme Law of (the supreme law). Therefore, both legislation, the process of its formation as well as the material charge, can be tested against the Constitution as the Supreme Law; The authority of the Court, to try and break the application testing legislation against the Constitution, as defined by article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution, the constitutional mandate to contain Court to escort the Constitution. The guardian of the constitution in this connection, what is meant is the Court must make sure there are no laws that violate the constitutional rights of citizens solely for the reason of creating orderly law. However, on the other hand, the Court must also ascertain the circumstances do not occur by reason of protecting the constitutional rights of citizens put aside the interests of the community;

95 That therefore, all parties, especially the Court, must be held that any act is constitutional (the principle of constitutionality) until proven through the judicial process before the Court that the law in question is unconstitutional "; Related matters a quo which in anyway question about threshold gains voice for the political party electoral participants, the Court needs to refer consideration of the Law Court in the verdict of case No. 3/PUU-VII/2008 dated February 13, 2009, which States as follows: "a. that since elections in 1999 and 2004 Elections, forming the legislation through law number 3 of 1999 on general election (hereinafter the LAW 3/1999) and law No. 12 of 2003 on general elections Board members Representatives, regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (hereinafter referred to as ACT 12/2003) have implemented the policy threshold percentage gains a seat or vote for the political party of election so that Participants can follow the next general election in Indonesia customarily known by the term "Electoral Threshold" (abbreviated as ET). Through policies that will hopefully ET capable of creating simple party system as required by Act No. 2 of 1999 which was later replaced by Act No. 31 of 2002 on political parties. The result of such policies, in the 1999 elections only six political parties that meet the ET and the 2004 election only seven political parties that meet ET, whereas for the Party-political party that does not meet the ET to be able to follow the next election should join other political parties that meet or do not meet ET ET ET to meet in accordance with the provisions set forth in ACT 12/2003. Although the number of political parties remains a lot due to the establishment of a new political party or Party-political party that morphed into a new political party, but due to the policy in the ACT 3/ET 1999 number of Party Participants 2004 elections decreased 50% from 48 political parties at Elections of 1999 to 24 political parties in the 2004 election, while the number of political parties which obtain seats in PARLIAMENT in the 1999 elections was 16 political parties and elections in 2004 amounted to 21 political parties; b. the policy Against the Court, ET never disconnected application testing policy ET listed in article 9 paragraph (1) of ACT 12/2003 filed by 13 political parties Election 2004 Participants who do not meet the ET (most political parties also apply in the case of number 3/PUU-VII/2009) with similar arguments and ask the experts thus proposed that ET replaced PT. Court ruling declared the petition was rejected, with consideration of, among other things, that the policy was not discriminatory because ET applies to all political parties, it is the policy of common law (legal policy) that is mandated by article 22E paragraph (6) of the Constitution which is very open, that "further Provisions about elections is regulated by the Act", so according to the COURT, either on policy or the same PT ET konstitusionalitasnya (vide Verdict number 16/PUU-V/2007 dated October 23, 2007);


96 c. That policy ET embraced in law 3/1999 and ACT 12/2003 and then by the ACT of 10/2008 is replaced with a new policy that well known by the term "Parliamentary Threshold" (abbreviated PT) listed in article 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 which reads, "the political party Electoral Participants must meet a threshold of at least 2.5% of the vote tally (two comma five perseratus) of the total number of valid votes nationally for being included in the determination of the acquisition of the Chair of the House." Through the policy of PT, it seems a founding legislation (PARLIAMENT and Government) intends to create a simple system of nationality through a reduction in the number of political parties that can put his Deputy in PARLIAMENT, changed from the previous way with policy ET meaning reducing the number of Election participants; … … The provisions of article 22E the Constitution indicates that the signs which become the Constitution regarding the election are: a) the elections done periodically every five years; b the Election principle adhered) direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair; c) the purpose of Elections to select members of Parliament, DPD, LEGISLATORS, the President and Vice President; d) participants of the election to choose legislative is a political party, while the participants Election to choose members of the DPD is an individual; and e) Election organizers is an Electoral Commission that is national, permanent and independent. Thus, the rest of the provisions pertaining to elections, for example about the electoral system, the electoral region, the terms to run elections, voting rights, etc., by the Constitution delegated to the creation of laws to govern it in laws freely as a legal policy (legal policy)-forming legislation, of course, all is not negated the principles contained in the Constitution, such as the principle of popular sovereignty, the principle of parity, the principle of Justice the principle of non-discrimination, and; …” The award number 3/PUU-VII/2009, the Applicants also argued that as such in paragraph [3.17] point c: "... Article 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 violate principles of the position within the equations and the rule of law set forth in article 27 paragraph (1) of the Constitution, according to the Appellant there is a different treatment for prospective members of the House that is the policy of the Centre for PT to put his Deputy in Parliament, whereas these provisions are not enforced for the determination of the seat of a member of the provincial PARLIAMENT and district/city. Evidence against the Applicant, the Court held that the policy is just right, because the position of the PARLIAMENT in the system is different from the HOUSE's attempt with the nonprofit national and holds the power to form a law [article 20 paragraph (1) of the Constitution], as well as being the President's power in the system of offsetting checks and balances, and the powers of PARLIAMENT as part of the Government of the area still controlled by the Government (the Center). In this case, the Court also agreed with the arguments of the PARLIAMENT, Government and experts from the Government, that the provisions of the PT only valid for the determination of the seat of PARLIAMENT and does not apply to the determination of LEGISLATIVE seats, the policy is not discriminatory, but rather precisely proportionate policies;

97 ... According to the Court, the policy of PT in article 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 absolutely not ignore the principles of HUMAN RIGHTS contained in article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the Constitution, because each person, each citizen, and each political party Electoral Participants are treated equally and given the same opportunity through competition in a democratic election. Likely there are indeed lucky and there's luck in a competition called the election, but his opportunities and remain the same; ... The Court held the provision of article 202, paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 simply does not contain properties and elements that are discriminatory, because in addition to apply objectively to all Participants of the Centre's overall election and the nominees members of Parliament from the Party Electoral Participants, without exception, nor is there any differentiation factors of race, religion, gender, social status, and others referred to Act No. 39 of 1999 on human rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); [3.19] considering that can thus be inferred that the legislature can define the threshold as a legal policy for the existence of political parties either shaped or PT. ET Policy like this is allowed by the Constitution as a political party because of the fact that simplification of the existence of the law on the system of Nationality or Political laws associated are indeed meant to make such limitations to the extent allowed by the Constitution. About how the magnitude of the threshold number is to become an authority forming legislation to specify one without may were interfered by the Court for not incompatible with political rights, popular sovereignty, and rationality. Thus, according to the Court, the provisions regarding the existence of PT as regulated in article 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 does not violate the Constitution because the provisions of the Act a quo has given opportunities for every citizen to form a political party, but at the same time selected and bounded rationally through provisions of the PT to be able to have a representative in the House. No matter where in the world is the Constitution gives authorizes the creation of legislation to determine the limitations in the legislation for the implementation of the people's political rights; [was 3.20] considering that despite the Court held the policy PT listed in article 202 paragraph (1) of LAW 10/2008 the same konstitusionalnya with the policies laid out in the ACT ET 3/1999 and LAW 12/2003, however the Court assess the framer of laws inconsistent with policy-related policies relating to election and impressed always experiment and do not already have a design that is clear about what is meant by a simple system of the party to the creation of leading up to the election, so that each is always followed by the formation of new legislation in the field of politics, namely the laws on political parties, laws on elections, and legislation regarding the arrangement and position of the MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD; " Therefore, according to the Court, the legal reasoning of the award Numbers 22-24/PUU-VI/2008, dated December 23, 2008, and decision No. 3/PUU-VII/2009, dated February 13, 2009, as quoted above, mutatis mutandis apply also to legal considerations in a quo, i.e. 98 testing the constitutionality of article 208 of the ACT 8/2012 concerning the enforcement of PT 3.5% (three comma five percent) of the total number of valid votes nationally to be included in the determination of the acquisition of the Chair members of the House , Provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota, the consequences of the ruling will eliminate the sound political parties that did not reach the PT 3.5% at the national level. Thus the political parties that did not reach the PT 3.5% at the national level do not have also seats in provincial and REGIONAL district/city; [3.25] considering that, according to the Court, the provisions of article 208 of the ACT 8/2012 and the explanation is aimed at simplifying the Party naturally. Nevertheless, from the point of substance, that provision does not accommodate the spirit of unity in diversity. That provision is potentially obstructing political aspirations at the local level, when there is the possibility of the existence of political parties that did not reach the PT nationally so it does not get a seat in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, but in these areas, both at the level of provinces or kabupaten/kota, the political parties gain significant votes which resulted in getting a seat on each of the representative institutions of the area. Even in extreme made possible the existence of political parties that do not meet the national PT 3.5%, but an absolute win in certain areas. Such event will cause the members of the PARLIAMENT are finally sitting in PARLIAMENT are not candidates for members of PARLIAMENT are supposed to be if the tracing on the acquisition of his voice, or in other words, the members of PARLIAMENT who eventually became a member of PARLIAMENT does not represent the voice of voters in his area. Politics law as defined in article 208 of the ACT 8/2012 and the explanation is precisely contrary to the kebhinnekaan and political aspirations of the diverse idiosyncrasies in each region; [3.25.1] according to the Court, the enactment of the PT nationally that have legal consequences on the loss of chairs of political parties which have no seats in PARLIAMENT but political parties concerned meet the provisions of numbers dividing the electorate in the area and makes the chairs are owned in other political parties which in fact did not meet the number of dividing voters but has a seat in the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, thus contrary to popular sovereignty, political rights, and rationality , so


99 runs counter to the purposes of the general election itself, namely to choose representatives ranging from the central level to the region; [3.25.2] the Court also assess if the PT 3.5% imposed in multilevel, respectively 3.5% for the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota, may give rise to the possibility of no political party Electoral participants in a region (province or County/City) that meet the PT 3.5% so that none of the members of the political party that can occupy the seat of PARLIAMENT. This may occur if the assumed political parties Election participants amounted to 30 political parties and vote divided median until a maximum of each political party Electoral participants only gain a maximum of 3.3% of the vote. In addition, there are also possibilities in an area there is only one political party that meets the PT 3.5% so there is only one political party occupying the entire seats in PARLIAMENT or at least many of the seats are not filled. It is precisely contrary to the provisions of the Constitution which requires Elections to elect Legislative, which turned out to be not achieved because the seats were not divided up, or will happen only one political party sitting in PARLIAMENT are thus not in line with the Constitution; [3.26] considering that on the basis of the above considerations, according to the Court, the applicant's plea of all regarding the phrase "Provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS district/municipality" in section 208 of the ACT 8/2012 reasoned law. Thus, the provisions of the PT 3.5% applies only to chair the House and had no legal consequences against the determination/tally tally of seats political parties in PARLIAMENT and in provincial district/city; The constitutionality of article, paragraph, or phrases in section and/or subsection of the ACT 8/2012 related article, paragraph, or phrase in chapter and/or verse which appealed testing [3.27] considering that the verdict regarding article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012 and explanation of article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012 have consequences against the provisions of the present article or paragraph of ACT 8/2012 refers to the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) a quo. Although not explicitly appealed by the Claimant to be tested, but after observing LAW 8/2012, the Court found that the law 100 article 17 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012 are inextricably linked (referred) to the provisions of article 8 paragraph (1) of ACT 8/2012 who petitioned test material by the applicant. Similarly, the phrase "Provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS district/municipality" in section 208 of the ACT 8/2012, according to the Court, closely related to the same phrase in article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012, so that the verdict against Article 208 of the ACT 8/2012 immediately brought the law against Article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of ACT 8/2012 along with the explanation; [3.28] considering that the existence of rulings concerning articles in law 8/2012, mainly related to the provisions concerning the verification of political parties, then everything that leads to a legal process with the holding of legislative elections by 2014 should be adjusted with does not change the schedule of voting; [3.29] considering that on the basis of the considerations above, according to a Court petition for the Applicant regarding testing the constitutionality of article 8 paragraph (1), article 8 paragraph (2), and section 208 of the ACT 8/2012, or some phrases from the article or subsection referred to, reasoned legal for most; 4. CONCLUSION based on the above assessment of the facts and the law as outlined above, the Court concluded that: [4.1] the Court is authorized to adjudicate a petition for quo; [2.6] The applicant has legal position (legal standing) to apply for a quo; [4.3] the petition law for most reasoned. Based on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, Act No. 24 of 2003 about the Constitutional Court 101 as amended by law No. 8 year 2011 about the changes to the Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia number 70 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5226), and Act No. 48 in 2009 about the Power of Justice (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia year 2009 Number 157 Additional Sheets, the Republic of Indonesia Number 5076); 5. AMAR'S RULING Judge, declare: 1. Granting the petition of the Applicant for most; 1.1. Article 8 paragraph (1) and article 8 paragraph (1) of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) is contrary to the Constitution; 1.2. Article 8 paragraph (2) of Act No. 8 in 2012 about the Election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) along with the phrase "who did not meet the threshold of gaining votes in previous Elections or a new political party" and the explanation of article 8 paragraph (2) of Act No. 8 in 2012 about the Election of members of House of representatives , Regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) along with the phrase "the definition" new political party "is the political party that has never followed the Election" is contrary to the Constitution; 1.3. Article 17 paragraph (1) and article 17 paragraph (1) of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, 102 regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) is contrary to the Constitution; 1.4. Article 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) along with the phrase "provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota" contrary to the Constitution; 1.5. Article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Act No. 8 in 2012 about the Election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) along with the phrase "provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS kabupaten/kota" contrary to the Constitution; 1.6. Article 8 paragraph (1) and article 8 paragraph (1) of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) do not have binding legal force; 1.1. Article 8 paragraph (2) of Act No. 8 in 2012 about the Election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) along with the phrase "who did not meet the threshold of gaining votes in previous Elections or a new political party" and the explanation of article 8 paragraph (2) of Act No. 8 in 2012 about the Election of members of House of representatives , Regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) during 103 "phrase is a" new political party "is the political party that has never followed the Elections" have no binding legal force; 1.1. Article 5 paragraph (1) as well as an explanation of article 5 paragraph (1) of law No. 8 year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) do not have binding legal force; 1.2. Article 208 of the Act number 8 of year 2012 general election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) along with the phrase "provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS district/city" has no binding legal force; 1.10. Article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Act No. 8 in 2012 about the Election of members of the House of representatives, the regional representative Council, and the regional House of representatives (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia in 2012 the number 117 Additional State Gazette Repulik Indonesia Number 5316) along with the phrase "provincial, and SUB-PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTS district/city" has no binding legal force; 2. Refuse the application for the applicant to other than and the rest; 3. Orders the loading of this ruling in the news of the Republic of Indonesia as it should be; The case was decided in the meeting of the Consultative Constitutional Judge by eight Judges, i.e. Moh. Mahfud MD, as the Chair of the sitting member, Achmad Sodiki, Ahmad Fadlil, Maria Farida Indrati Sumadi, m. N Deputy Mochtar, Muhammad Alim, Usman Anwar, and Hamdan Zoelva, each as a member, on Wednesday, the date fifteen, August, year two thousand twelve, and is spoken in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court is open to the public on Wednesday, the date of the twenty-nine, in August, the year two thousand twelve ,


104 by eight Judges of the Constitution, namely the Moh. Mahfud MD, as the Chair of the sitting member, Achmad Sodiki, Ahmad Fadlil, Maria Farida Indrati Sumadi, m. N Deputy Mochtar, Muhammad Alim, Usman Anwar, and Hamdan Zoelva, each as members, assisted by the Registrar as a replacement for the Mardian Wibowo, and attended by the Applicant/Power, Government or representing, and the House of representatives or representing. Chairman, ttd. MOH. Mahfud Md. Members, ttd. TD Achmad Sodiki ttd. Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi ttd. Maria Farida Indrati ttd. M. N Deputy Mochtar ttd. Muhammad Alim ttd. Usman Anwar ttd. Hamdan Zoelva 6. A DIFFERENT OPINION (DISSENTING OPINION) Against the ruling of this Court, for special consideration of the law against Article 208 of the ACT 8/2012 Constitutional Judge, m. N Deputy Mochtar had a different opinion (dissenting opinion), as follows: 105 [6.1] considering that the application of the model of parliamentary threshold in Indonesia Election system is not in line with the objective of simplification of the party system in the framework of a presidential system effectiveness through institutional strengthening Parliament. In addition, the application of the model of parliamentary threshold resulted in terhambatnya channel aspirations of minorities in a State building systems a democratic Indonesia and guaranteed by the Constitution. On the basis of this, I expressed a different opinion. That in every Election, there is definitely a limit system (the threshold) which resulted in keterpilihan someone to occupy public office. This threshold is the Election system in nature (natural threshold). That LAW 8/2012 open proportional system gives the appreciation to the voice of the people in an open, free to choose and specify the members of the legislature. This system also eliminates the top waiver action terbuangnya voice of the people for free and guarantee the principle of representativeness based on respect for minority groups in a pluralist society in Indonesia. [6.2] considering that the Court ruling number 22-24/PUU-VI/2008 dated 23 December 2008 in consideration of the law has been expressly guarantee fulfilled the principle of popular sovereignty and the principle of representation with the consideration that reads, "... because it keterpilihan the members of the legislature should not be shifted from the people's decision is sovereign to the decisions of the Executive Board of a political party as the constitutional mandate set forth in the preamble of the Constitution of 1945". That threshold (the parliamentary threshold) at least 3.5% (three and a half per cent) of the total tally of votes as provided in section 208 of the ACT 8/2012, shaper legislation need to consider matters relating to the parliamentary threshold. By comparison, the House of Parliament (the Parliamentary Assembly) of Europe, for example, in resolution 1547 Number issued in 2007 set up that the determination of the threshold (threshold) in the top 3% (three percent) does not have a strong legal foundation in a democratic country the system of 106 established. Democracy must be able to provide the highest possible guarantees for the protection of freedom of opinion, issuing association, and Assembly. Strict restrictions upon the protection of the freedom of the pemberangusan against the values of democracy. [6.3] considering that notice principle contained in article 22E subsection (1) of the Constitution implementation of a quality election should involve the participation of people's existence on the basis of the principles of direct democracy, public, free, secret, honest and fair. The application of the principles of the election should be the main runway to be developed and implemented through the electoral legislation and implemented through the Election Law as the basis for the implementation of the entire stage of the general election in order to be accounted for. In the implementation of the elections, the people is the main subject in enforcing the principle of popular sovereignty. People should not be positioned as objects by stakeholders for the sake of mere political victory. That for the umpteenth time, the legislation governing the determination of the threshold amount of the acquisition of a sound political parties sued by judicial review. The Court never examine things with a similar problem in the case number 3/PUU-VII/2009. In a dissenting opinion on the ruling of the matter, I consider the advantages and disadvantages of model implementation of the parliamentary threshold for the sake of simplification of the system of the party. I came to the conclusion that the application of parliamentary threshold in Indonesia Election system violates the principle of representativeness (representativeness) giving rise to legal uncertainty (legal uncertainty) and injustice (injustice) for members of political parties who had already escaped on a tally of votes in legislative elections but his party hampered to gain seats in the Parliament due to the introduction of the parliamentary threshold. [6.4] considering that in addition to the above, in the verdict of the Constitutional Court No. 3/PUU-VII/2009, the court assesses the policy steps taken by the framer of laws in order to simplify the system of nationality 107 is inconsistent and doesn't have great design (the grand design) as well as careful planning. This attitude appears to be clear of the experimentation conducted by the framer of laws with change, even change, legislation in the field of politics toward the holding of elections each. Simplification of the system of the party cannot be made as easy as blink of an eye and turn the Palm of the hand, it takes a long time, consistency and careful planning. The number of political parties can be restricted through an engineering based on social rules of law without having to sacrifice freedom of expression and constitutional rights of citizens to Association and Assembly. Therefore, similar to my opinion in Ruling No. 3/PUU-VII/2009 that model the parliamentary threshold, as set forth in section 208 of the ACT 8/2012, in order to simplify the system of Indonesia nationality is contrary to the Constitution. CLERK of the surrogate, ttd. Mardian Wibowo