Test The Material Constitutional Court Number 31/puu-Xi/2013 2013

Original Language Title: Uji Materi Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 31/PUU-XI/2013 Tahun 2013

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: http://peraturan.go.id/inc/view/11e44c504635eec0bd0b313232373138.html

Microsoft Word-31 PUU 2013-telahucap-3April2014_FINAL-URheader.doc VERDICT Number 31/PUU-XI/2013 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 testing the law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 proposed by: [1.2] : Ramdansyah, S.S., S. Sos., S.H., MSM. Place, date of birth: Jakarta, December 30, 1968 occupation: Self-employed address: Street Number 2a Muncang k/RT. 28/13, Lagoa Koja, North Jakarta, 14270 hereinafter referred to as –-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-Appellant; [1.3] heard and read the petition of the applicant; Hear and read the description of the President; Heard and read the description of the House of representatives; Read the description the Board Election Organizers Honor; Heard and read a description of the election Watchdog Agency; Heard and read a description of the applicant's Expert; Heard and read a description of the applicant's Witnesses; Examine the evidence the applicant; 2. SIT the MATTER [2.1] considering that the applicant had filed a petition dated February 28, 2013 are received at the Constitutional Court Registrar (hereinafter referred to as the clerk of the Court) on 4 March 2013 based on deed of receipt of the Application File Number 100/URPAN.MK/2013 and recorded in 2 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id of case Registration Book of the Constitution with the number 31/PUU-XI/on 11 March 2013 2013 that is fixed and accepted at the Registrar of the Court on April 15, 2013 , which is substantially as follows: a. The AUTHORITY of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT in this appeal the appellant first explained the authority of the Constitutional Court to test 1) of article 28 paragraph (3) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decide dismissal referred to subsection (1)..."; 2) of article 28 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling referred to in paragraph (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP"; 3) Article 100 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)..."; 4) Article 101 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by Regulation DKPP"; 5) Article 112 paragraph (9) along with the phrase "DKPP award ..."; 6) Article 112 paragraph (10) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP ..."; 7) Article 112 paragraph (12) along with the phrase "the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final"; 8) Article 112 paragraph (13) along with the phrase "... compulsory executeth DKPP"; 9) Section 113 subsection (2) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict against the examination ..." Law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers are: 1. Referring to the provisions of article 24C paragraph (1) the Constitution and article 10 paragraph (1) letter a Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (law COURT), that one of the powers of the Constitutional Court is conducting a Testing legislation against the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945). Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution, among others, stated: "the Constitutional Court is authorized to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final to examine legislation against the Constitution ..."; Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of the ACT the COURT inter alia States: "the Constitutional Court is authorized to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final: 3 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id a. test legislation against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 ..."; 2. Article 1 point 3 law number 8 of year 2011 about the changes to the Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, declaring "the petition is a request submitted in writing to the Constitutional Court concerning: a. testing legislation against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945; b. dispute the authority of the State agencies that those powers given by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945; c. the dissolution of political parties; d. disputes concerning election results; or e. the opinion of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES that the President and/or Vice President is alleged to have committed violations of the law in the form of treason against the State, corruption, bribery, other heavy criminal acts, or conduct reprehensible, and/or no longer qualify as the President and/or Vice-president as stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 "3. Article 9 paragraph (1) of the Act No. 12 year 2011 about the formation of Legislation, "in terms of legislation alleged to be incompatible with the Constitution of the State of INDONESIA in 1945, done is done by the Constitutional Court" 4. That now the norm that petitioned to be tested is the norm of the law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers as follows: dismissal of DKPP decided by 1. Article 28 paragraph (3) in the case of meetings plenary DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1), the Member in question was dismissed as a member of the Election Commission, the provisional ELECTION COMMISSION of the province, or district/city ELECTION COMMISSION up to publication of the decision of dismissal.

4 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 2. Article 28 paragraph (4) of the Ordinance a complaint referred to in subsection (1), the defence referred to in subsection (2), and the taking of the verdict as referred to in subsection (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP. 3. Article 100 paragraph (4) in the case of meetings plenary DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2), the Member in question was dismissed while Bawaslu Member, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors up to the publication of the decision of dismissal. 4. Article 101 paragraph (1) of the Ordinance the complaints, pleadings, and the taking of the verdict by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by Regulation DKPP. 5. Article 112 paragraph (9) DKPP award after conducting research and/or verification against the complaint, to listen to defense witnesses and information, as well as paying attention to the evidence. 6. Article 112 paragraph (10) the verdict of DKPP be penalized or taken in a plenary meeting of the rehabilitation of DKPP. 7. Article 112 paragraph (12) of the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final and binding. 8. Article 112 paragraph (13) of the provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION Kabupaten/Kota, PPS, PPK, PPLN, KPPS, KPPSLN, Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu, PPL and the obligatory PPLN executeth DKPP. 9. Article 113 paragraph (2) the taking of the verdict against the examination referred to in subsection (1) done in Plenary meeting of DKPP.

5 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id norm of the Constitution, which provided the stone test in this petition as much as 4 (four) norm, namely: 1. the article 1 paragraph (3) Legal Indonesia Country is a country of 2. Article 22E subsection (1) the election was carried out in direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years 3. Article 22E paragraph (5) public Election organised by an Electoral Commission that is national, fixed, and independent 4. Article 28D paragraph (1) everyone has the right to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law based on the things above, the Constitutional Court is authorized to check and disconnect the test application this Act. B. the POSITION of the APPLICANT (LEGAL STANDING) that according to the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1) of LAW Number 24 year 2003 on the Constitutional Court (law COURT), so that a person or a party may be accepted as an applicant in the application for testing legislation against the Constitution, then the person or party in question shall be: a. to explain his position in his petition, that is, whether the individual as a citizen of Indonesia, the unity of Community law , a legal entity, or State agencies; b. Loss of rights and/or konstitusionalnya, in a position of authority as referred to in subparagraph (a), as a result of the diberlakukanya laws that appealed the test on the basis of that provision the applicant then need beforehand to explain his position, the right of the Applicant's Constitution, along with the specific losses are sustained will be as follows: 1. That the applicant is an individual citizen of Indonesia, who had previously worked as Chairman and member of the Supervisory Committee (Panwaslu) general election the general election of regional Heads


6 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id (Pemilukada) DKI Jakarta area of law handling and handling violations. 2. That in the work as Chairman and a member of the Division of law handling and the handling of Infringement, the applicant finds the problem of norms of law number 15 year 2011, which is in principle the norm issues detrimental to the Applicant authority. 3. That the applicant in carrying out his duties as Chairman and member of Panwaslu running principle of certainty of law as enshrined in article 2 (d) of grain by forwarding the report alleged violations of the election the Governor and Vice Governor of Jakarta which are not reported, and its team of Fauzi Bowo-Nachrowi to establishments that are authorized pursuant to section 75 subsection (1) grain e. all done in accordance with the applicable procedures (vide attached proof). The efforts of the applicant as a person who is running the command mandate legislation, suddenly dismissed permanently certainly can interfere with the principle of legal certainty and the interests of society, especially communities that conduct complaints and report to Bawaslu/Panwaslu. 4. That the norm of the law number 15 year 2011 about organizers of elections according to the applicant is contrary to the Constitution of 1945 was 1) of article 28 paragraph (3) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decide dismissal referred to subsection (1)..."; 2) of article 28 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling referred to in paragraph (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP"; 3) Article 100 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)..."; 4) Article 101 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by Regulation DKPP"; 5) Article 112 paragraph (9) along with the phrase "DKPP award ..."; 6) Article 112 paragraph (10) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP ..."; 7) Article 112 paragraph (12) along with the phrase "the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final"; 8) Article 112 paragraph (13) all 7 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id the phrase "... compulsory executeth DKPP"; Law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers. 5. That positive assessment of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of INDONESIA declaring Pemilukada DKI Jakarta by 2012 is already well underway and being role models; Positive view of the Minister of the Interior said in the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor of DKI, elected October 15, 2012; The positive assessment of the observers from the UI Sri Eko Wardani and Siti Zuhro LIPI on performance of ELECTION COMMISSION and Panwaslu JAWA; Civil society Coalition Award for youth that gives the award the 2012 Youth Award is contrary to the decision of the organizers not to presume DKPP neutral and immediately dismiss the Chairman and member of Panwaslu JAWA permanently indicates the inequality that is presented by the ruling of DKPP (vide attached proof). 6. That injustice happened ablaze done by DKPP because the applicant as Chairman of Panwaslu JAWA dugaaan ketidakneteralan report considers proof of applicant's photograph with team summary condemnation campaign prospective couples along with journalists in Polda Metro Jaya get permanently stops while the verdict against ELECTION COMMISSION Election organizers DKPP Jakarta Dahlia Umar related list of voters remain fickle and potentially lose the rights the Constitution citizens of DKI Jakarta in Pemilukada DKPP Verdict in 2012 just got a written warning letter. 7. That the Council has already explained to the Tribunal that all of the related charges DKPP ketidaknetralan Applicant is untrue. All files report followed up and reviewed by Panwaslu DKI advertising, including APPSI reported by Tim Fauzi Bowo-Nachrowi as well as reports from Team Jokowi-Basuki (vide attached proof). 8. Bawaslu RI as a direct supervisor of Panwaslu DKI has also provided an appreciation of Panwaslu Jawa and Minelayer in the Media Centre Bawaslu RI 25 October 2012 by a Charter signed by Chairman Bawaslu RI on October 16, 2012, contrary to the dismissal against the applicant on November 16, 2012 (vide attached proof).

8 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 9. That the applicant as citizens who have the right to be the organizer of the election but because dismissed by DKPP and followed up with the dismissal of a member and the Chairman of Panwaslu DKI by Bawaslu then lost a constitutional rights as citizens to sign up to become an organizer of Elections/Pemilukada. 10. That the applicant's difficulty in work as well as being a teacher at a University because it asked the status associated with the ruling of DKPP, so difficult to teach (vide attached proof). 11. That the troubled norm can also cause disruption of the election organizers good performance Bawaslu and Minelayer and ELECTION COMMISSION along with a Minelayer in the end can harm or at least impede the holding of elections, as well as the legal uncertainty raises against the tasks and authorities of Bawaslu, ELECTION COMMISSION and Minelayer. 12. The applicant considers That the COURT should not allow the Organization of the Elections is hampered or harmed because of the existence of a norm which could harm or hinder the conduct of the election. 13. That the reference to the Court ruling since the verdict Number 006/PUU-III/2005 of 31 May 2005 and decision number 11/PUU-V/2007 20 September 2007 and subsequent rulings, 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 conditions, namely: 1. the existence of the right and/or the applicant's constitutional authority given by the Constitution; 2. the rights and/or the constitutional authority by the applicant are considered impaired by the enactment of legislation which petitioned testing; 3. the constitutional HARM must be specific (Special) and the actual potential or at least according to the reasoning reasonably certain will happen;

9 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 4. the existence of a causal relationship (causal verband) between the losses in question and the enactment of legislation which petitioned testing; 5. the existence of a possibility that with the dikabulkannya application, then a constitutional disadvantage as postulated would not or no longer occur; Thus there is an absolute five conditions that must be met in the test legislation against the Constitution. The first requirement is the qualifications of the applicant as a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, to act as the applicant as defined in article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT the COURT. The second requirement, with the enactment of a law the rights and/or constitutional authority the applicant harm. The third requirement, the specific nature of the constitutional harm. The fourth requirement, the loss incurred due to the enactment of the Bill is requested. The terms of the fifth, the constitutional losses won't happen again if the petition is granted. 14. That against the five criteria mentioned above are explained by the Court through the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the number 27/PUU-VII/2009 in testing formyl second amendment Supreme Court Act (page 59), which mentions the following: "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 materially, the legislation against the Constitution ". (See also Lee Bridges, et al in "Judicial Review in Perspective", 1995). 15. That when referring to five terms as mentioned above as well as referring to the Constitutional Court Verdict Number 27/PUU-VII/2009, the applicant has legal standing because the Applicant lost his constitutional rights to be the organizer of the election and other public officials. The applicant also filed this petition for the sake of the public interest i.e. the existence of legal certainty for the public


10 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id reported the case to the Election and the range. Legal certainty is also necessary for the ELECTION COMMISSION and the range, so that in the exercise of his duties is not diintimadasi by the shadow of a permanently stops as Election organizers. 16. That based on a description of the applicant's already stated above proves that the applicant (individual citizens of Indonesia) has the position of law (legal standing) to act as the applicant in the application for testing these laws. 5. That in the event this appeal should the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court in order to grant the legal standing of the applicant for the sake of the principle of free elections tegaknya, honest and fair with upholding legal certainty, fairness, expediency and fundamental equation of every citizen before the law. C. POSITA as for Applicant with reasons applied to Article 112 paragraph (12) juncto paragraph (10), as follows: reason 1) of article 28 paragraph (3) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decide dismissal referred to subsection (1)..."; 2) of article 28 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling referred to in paragraph (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP"; 3) Article 100 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)..."; 4) Article 101 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by Regulation DKPP"; 5) Article 112 paragraph (9) along with the phrase "DKPP award ..."; 6) Article 112 paragraph (10) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP ..."; 7) Article 112 paragraph (12) along with the phrase "the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final"; 8) Article 112 paragraph (13) along with the phrase "... compulsory executeth DKPP"; 9) Section 113 subsection (2) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict against the examination ..." Law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers are contrary to the Constitution of 1945.

11 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 1. That DKPP by law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers referred to as agencies that are fixed with a final and binding ruling in the overthrow sanctions against Bawaslu, Election Commission, and the range. 2. That the existence of DKPP in law number 15 year 2011 is progress by placing DKPP are fixed. The nature of these remains solely to address the problems of the formation as occurs in Act No. 22 of 2007 about the Election Organizers. This can be seen in the application of the test material Act No. 22 of 2007 presented by Bawaslu as stated in the ruling of the Constitutional Court number 11/PUU-VIII/2010. 3. That the Constitutional Court in a ruling of the Constitutional Court number 11/PUU-VIII/2010 States that the number and composition of the Council area is the honorary legal policy open (opened legal policy) of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and the Government, which is not contrary to the Constitution and fulfilled in Act No. 15 of 2011 with a composition that consists of the ELECTION COMMISSION and Bawaslu in a balanced way. Within the framework of this thought, law number 15 year 2011 also complement Council Honors the organizers of the election of an independent outside parties. 4. That in the system's attempt to RI then DKPP is not the organizer of the Election such as the ELECTION COMMISSION and declared unequivocally Bawaslu in number 5 of article 1 of the Act No. 15 in 2011. Sitting and standing position can not be said to be equivalent (side by side, leiben ein underi), but also not a mutual owns (unter orned, nacht ein get under), but instead actually plays as suporting element/auxiliary organs in the Organization of the Elections function to uphold the dignity, code of ethics, and the notability of the organizers of the election. It is stated in the Article 1 point 10 Law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers that States "Council of honour the next elections, Organizers shortened DKPP, is an institution tasked to handle violations of the code of conduct of election Organisers and is an aggregation function of organizing the elections".

12 COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 5. Honorary Board Election Organizers can be juxtaposed with the honor of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and formed HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES is a great tool that is fixed in accordance with article 123 of the Act Number 27 of 2009 about the people's Consultative Assembly, the House of representatives, regional representative Council and Representatives of the region. That Election organizers honored as an institution should be kept his honour through an agency supporters (supporting organ) Organizers Honorary Council Elections to uphold the honor of the organizer of the election. 6. That as enforcement agencies honor the election organisers, authorizations DKPP in legislation should pay attention to authority wholly owned by Election organizers namely authorizes the construction and supervision of the ELECTION COMMISSION and owned Bawaslu against Minelayer on the lower level. 7. That the authority and supervision of the construction, owned by the ELECTION COMMISSION and the presence of dinegasikan has been Bawaslu Verdict DKPP which is final, but the existence of the organizers of the election at the provincial, kabupaten/kota to on the Court are appointed by the organizer of the election-level on it. 8. That Act No. 15 of 2011 already clearly and emphatically placing DKPP as external coaching institutions against the ranks of Election organisers. External coaching institutions should not be given the authority to disconnect with the verdicts are final so as to negate the authority and supervision of the construction, owned by Bawaslu and ELECTION COMMISSION as stipulated in Act No. 15 in 2011. The function of the dinegasikan supervision and coaching here is in the process of dismissal of the ranks to be appointed by Election organizers Bawaslu and ELECTION COMMISSION. The ranks of Election organisers are appointed through a decision which was decided in plenary meeting and the Election Commission, Bawaslu however lunch is not through plenary meetings and ELECTION COMMISSION but by Bawaslu DKPP with verdict is final. 9. That in the process of coaching and supervision there is legal uncertainty related agencies which are authorized to drop 13 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Decision be final related dismissal Bawaslu and ELECTION COMMISSION as well as a Minelayer. Of course this legal uncertainty conditions already conflicted with article 1 paragraph (3) juncto Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945. 10. That is not the institution that runs the DKPP power of Justice due to Article 24 paragraph (1) of the Constitution mentions expressly that the judicial power is the power to run the judiciary to enforce the law and justice. 11. That is also not appropriate when DKPP hailed as another agency that runs the power function of Justice, because "other agencies that function with regard to the powers of the judiciary provided for in the Act" is the other body related to its function with the judiciary, namely the State Attorney or the police as a prosecutor or the investigating agencies; 12. That is because the Agency is not a holder of power of DKPP justice so it is not right when the characteristics of the verdict DKPP equal to the verdict of the judiciary which is final and binding. 13. That caused the verdict is final and binding on the institution of sanctions from the holder of the power of Justice, it should not make a ruling but DKPP recommendations. So that is the norm in the law number 15 year 2011 stating DKPP award is contrary to the norms of Justice Power arrangements as referred to in Article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. 14. That Indonesia as a State of law as referred to in article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution of 1945 to know the existence of the State of the judiciary due to one of the State's law is the existence of judicial administration. Judicial administration in Indonesia known as the country's judiciary. As for the decisions that can be the object of a lawsuit in the State judiciary is a decision of individual nature, concrete, and final. 15. That DKPP under article 1 point 10 Law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers already stated unequivocally


2 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id as "... an aggregation function of organizing the elections" which means DKPP is part of The State because Officials organize governmental functions in the 56th general election. That although the function of organizing Elections run DKPP, ruling DKPP is not the object of judicial administrative suit in the State. 16. That on the basis of the foregoing, and when reviewed number 9 of article 1 of Act No. 51 of 2009 about the second amendment in the law No. 5 of 1986 about The State of the Judiciary States: State Administrative Decisions is a written assignment issued by agencies or officials of the State containing the legal action the State based on laws applicable invitation- , which are concrete, individualized, and final, which give rise to legal consequences for a person or a body of civil law. 17. That article 2 of Act No. 5 of 1986 on The Judiciary of the country gives The Officials Decision regarding which countries could be excluded for The Judiciary to sued the State. Article 2 of Act No. 5 of 1986 concerning Administrative Justice States not included in the notion of the State Administrative Decisions according to this law: a. decision of The Countries that are the deeds of civil law; b. the decision of The Countries that are the settings that are common; c. decision of The Countries that still require approval; d. decision of The countries that issued based on the provisions of the book of the law of criminal law or the book of the law of Criminal Procedure Law or other legislation that is criminal law; e. the State Administrative Decisions issued on the basis of the results of examination of the bodies of the judiciary based on the provisions of the applicable legislation;

3 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id f. State Administrative Decisions regarding the armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia; g. Election Committee Decisions, both at the Center and the regions, concerning the results of the elections. 18. the fact that in the verdict of DKPP in dropping the sanction of dismissal not be final because it has yet to be acted upon by the decision of the Election Commission, Bawaslu and so it is not right when the verdict is final, so the DKPP Verdict DKPP very approaching nature with the decision of The Countries that still require approval as referred to article 2 letter c of Act No. 5 of 1986 on The Judiciary of the country. 19. That the nature in a final court ruling with a decision of The State Officials is a different matter. In the Court ruling, the nature of the final meant the absence of remedy that could be made against the verdict, while the final nature of the decision in a show that does not require the approval of the decision further and can be directly executed, while Ruling DKPP can not be directly executed in the absence of a decision of the ELECTION COMMISSION and Bawaslu. 20. That the decision of a Commission of ethics like DKPP should not be final because it requires further approval from Bawaslu and ELECTION COMMISSION to issue the decision is final. 21. he delivered the verdict that by not DKPP recommendation or need further approval from Bawaslu and Election Commission, already raises legal uncertainty in the process of dismissal and was contrary to article 1 paragraph (3) juncto Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945. 22. That the legal liability Verdict against a DKPP be final and binding can not be done considering who may be subject to legal accountability for State administration in The country's Judiciary was the decision of the ELECTION COMMISSION or the decision of a Bawaslu executeth DKPP to lay off the ranks of the ELECTION COMMISSION and a Bawaslu became the object of a lawsuit in the State judiciary. 23. That with no consequences for the State lawsuits that plagued DKPP DKPP Verdict due to a lawsuit against the 16 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id State occurred against the decision of ELECTION COMMISSION and individual interests, Bawaslu concrete and final in order to execute the ruling of DKPP. So the verdict of liability DKPP be final and binding only to the Lord and there are no mechanisms of checks and balances in it. 24. That caused liability Verdict DKPP only to God and no mechanisms of checks and balances due to verdict of DKPP, resulted in the termination of DKPP can act beyond the authority and exceed the demands of the (ultra petita). It can be substantiated in the award number 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 because the verdict the verdict load DKPP lay off more regularly to the image providers against Elections that could give rise to uncertainty and suspicion is not material to the truth whether it happens "ketidaknetralan in case of handling the APPSI disangkakan ads breach the complainant against the applicant" with photographic evidence of media coverage when the applicant together with the Rapporteur of the case of APPSI Ad Campaign Team Fauzi Nachrowi , print and electronic media journalists in the Polda Metro Jaya: page 21 Verdict number 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 4. CONCLUSION based on the assessment of the whole of the evidence/documents, witnesses and the facts in proceedings as outlined above, the Honorary Council Election Organizers concluded that: 4.1. Teradu has been proven to give different treatment to the Complainant by acting unfair, unequal and not closely so as to give rise to uncertainty and suspicion of disturbing imagery agency Election as Election Organizers the Governor and Vice Governor of DKI Jakarta in 2012. Thus Teradu have proven to be unfounded and violated the code of ethics of the organizers of the election article 5, article 6, article 7, article 8 and article 9 of the regulation together with Election Commission, Bawaslu DKPP and number 13 in 2012, the number 11 in 2012, the year 2012 No. 1 of the code of conduct of election Organisers.

5 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 4.2. Teradu proven in exercising oversight of Elections Governor and Vice Governor of DKI Jakarta in 2012 is not professional, not closely, and negligent in carrying out his responsibilities as Chairman of Panwaslu answer DKI Jakarta as stated in the oath/promise as stated in section 98 subsection (1) and paragraph (2) of LAW number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers working in earnest, honest and meticulous in carrying out his duties. DECIDE on a 1. Dropping the sanctions in the form of dismissal of Fixed to Teradu as the Chairman of Panwaslu Jakarta on behalf of Sdr. Ramdansyah of Panwaslu Membership Jakarta, counted since dibacakannya this ruling. 25. That the applicant as a teradu in the case of the alleged ketidaknetralan against one candidate already explained in the trial that the applicant was in DKPP Polda Metro Jaya and the media covered in the form of photographs along with the Candidate's campaign Team Fauzi-Nachrowi in position run the task as organizer of the Election Authority in accordance with law number 15 year 2011 juncto ACT 2007 number 22 of the organizers of the election and the DECISION the decision Bawaslu RI Number 581/Kep in 2011 about the determination of the members of Panwaslu Pemilukada Province DKI Jakarta so that the existence of joint rapporteur APPSi advertising case in ablaze in Polda Metro cannot be applied in an alleged violation of this code of conduct. 26. The applicant as teradu is a division of law enforcement so that one JAWA Panwaslu a commanded Ordinance to bring the dossiers to local authorities based on the results of the plenary meeting of Panwaslu DKI Jakarta. The Authority also arranged in Understanding the integrated law enforcement Centers (Gakkumdu) signed by Jakarta Police, Panwaslu Polda Metro Jaya and Jakarta High Prosecutor's Office. 27. That DKPP through Ruling No. 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 has been at odds with the principles of universally applicable law i.e. the principle of the lex certa, a material in the legislation does not


6 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id can be expanded or be interpreted other than written in legal regulation (lex stricta), or in other words the principle any provision or legislation can not be granted an extension other than specified explicitly and clearly according to the legislation. Due to the already firm and real that DKPP can only drop the verdict in the form of sanctions or rehabilitation. 28. That Decision the DKPP be final and binding on the applicant cannot ask cause remedy which can be made against the ruling of DKPP. The applicant can only do legal efforts to court The State (PTUN) with registration number 23/G/2013/PTUN Jakarta on February 13, 2013 top Ruling Bawaslu Number 712/KEP in 2012, dated 16 November 2012 about dismissal Ramdansyah dismissal hearing and would do the process Tuesday, March 5, 2013 (vide attached proof). 29. That due to liability Verdict DKPP which are final and binding only to the Lord, plus more DKPP politically led by influential people in the field of Elections so that psychologically very pronounced nuances to make DKPP as breakthroughs in making the Constitutional Court law, whereas DKPP only plays a role in the realm of ethics, unlike the Constitutional Court perform the powers of the judiciary. 30. That Ruling authority that transcends DKPP (ultra petita) not because of the problems of the application of the norm, but rather due to the norm of article 112 paragraph (12) stating the verdict DKPP is final. The nature of the verdicts are final are already creating the conditions of absence of mechanisms of mutual control (checks and balances) between DKPP with ELECTION COMMISSION and Bawaslu. 31. That many decisions that go beyond those powers DKPP has been dieksaminasi by a number of parties. Prof. Dr. Saldi Isra SH, MH, Refly Harun MH, SH, LLM, and Titi Anggraini do eksaminasi Verdict DKPP Number 25-26/DKPP/OKAY-I/2012. In the conclusion of case Titi Anggraini explain if it is the institutions that award DKPP finals and the magnitude of the law remain, but the note is that this is an institution DKPP to uphold ethics, but THIS RULING the CONSTITUTION COPIES of 19 RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id does not usurp the ethical authority of other institutions. In the case of reporting against the Commissioner of the ELECTION COMMISSION RI, but the sentenced was secretarial then Prof. Saldi Isra stated that such matters as the ruling ultra petita. There is a sanction given to a person or institution not complained of as a form of arbitrariness DKPP (vide attached proof). DKPP also discriminate be considered in decision making. When the party became Teradu in DKI Jakarta DKI Pemilukada 2012 DKPP not directly ordered the repair of the voters ' list (DPT). However, in the case of the Central ELECTION COMMISSION, the parties clearly ordered that DKPP 18 (eighteen) political party which did not qualify for the verification of the administration of the REPUBLIC of INDONESIA in order to be also included in factual verification FROM RI. 32. That DKPP has also given discrimination in making decisions against the organizers of the election in the general election the Governor and Vice Governor of DKI Jakarta. The award number 01/to-DKPP/VI/2012 and decision number 02/to-DKPP/VI/2012 by Teradu Dahlia Umar, Chairman of the ELECTION COMMISSION Jakarta that Teradu proved to not follow up on reports about the list of candidate voters remained, but his decision is a written warning. While to an applicant who is not considered a neutral decision is a dismissal is not fixed. 33. That the absence of a mechanism of mutual control between DKPP with ELECTION COMMISSION and State spirit Bawaslu contrary to law as referred to article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution of 1945 where the mechanism of checks and balances required in order to power so that there is no restriction that goes beyond the powers that have been granted by law. 34. That the presence of members of the ELECTION COMMISSION who come from DKPP and Bawaslu cannot be relied upon justification related DKPP dismissal Ruling Election Commission, Bawaslu, and would be final and justify already involving Bawaslu and ELECTION COMMISSION when disconnected. 35. That the existence of the Commission of ethics in Indonesia could not be released its development from the spirit of reforms where there should be a tool of control over performance of the organizer of the State, due to the internal control of 20 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id there is synonymous with the spirit of the Corps and the collusion of the institutions concerned. 36. That in Indonesia there are at least some commissions conduct post-reform that was born as a judicial Commission, Honorary Judge of the Constitutional Tribunal on the Constitutional Court, the Tribunal of honor judge on the Supreme Court, the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Ethics Committee BK KPK, the State Attorney Commission, and others. 37. That as a comparison in the process of dismissal of judges conducted by the Judicial Commission may not necessarily be only a Judicial Commission is disconnected but rather should involve the Supreme Court. This means that the verdict of the Judicial Commission is not final; there is also the involvement of the Supreme Court. The nature of the ruling of the Judicial Commission is proposed. The provisions of article 22D subsection (1) of the Act number 18 in 2011 about the changes to the Act No. 22 of 2004 about the judicial Commission stated: in the event of an alleged violation of the code of ethics and/or Conduct of judges stated proved as stipulated in article 22 c a, the Commission proposed the overthrow of Judicial sanctions against Judges suspected of committing offences to the Supreme Court. 38. That the proposed dismissal of the judge followed up by establishing an honorary judge of the Tribunal consists of the Supreme Court. Article 22F Act number 18 in 2011 about the changes to the Act No. 22 of 2004 about the judicial Commission States States: "the Tribunal of Honor Judge check and disconnect the existence of an alleged violation of the code of ethics and/or Conduct of judges proposed by the Judicial Commission or the Supreme Court in writing within sixty (60) days counted from the date the proposal is accepted". 39. That if self-defense was rejected by the judges of the Tribunal, the Tribunal Judges Honor Honor Judge delivered a proposal to the dismissal of the Chief Justice. It is stated in article 11A paragraph (10) of Act No. 3 of 2009 about the second amendment in the law No. 14 of 1985 about the great Mahhkamah: "in terms of self-defense referred to in subsection (6), the Tribunal rejected the honor Judge delivered a proposal for dismissal of 21 of the decision a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id to the Chairman of the Supreme Court and the judicial Commission's longest-7 (seven) working days counted from the date the examination was completed". 40. That within the process of enforcement of the code of ethics of the constitutional judges in the Constitutional Court any Honorary Judge of the Tribunal involving the Constitution. Honorary Award of the Tribunal Judges the Constitution any recommendation. Article 1 4 Act No. 8 of 2011 about the Constitutional Court declared the Tribunal of honor of the Constitutional Court is formed by the Constitutional Court to monitor, investigate and recommend action against Judges who allegedly violated the Constitution, code of ethics and Conduct of the constitutional Judges 41. That at other institutions who are both those powers mentioned in the Constitution of 1945 and selected (fit and proper test) by the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, for example is the Financial Examiner, Honorary Council code of conduct of the Agency's Financial Examiners in the dropping of sanctions of conduct to the member body of the Financial Examiner only proposals/recommendations as stipulated in Act No. 15 of 2006 about the Agency's Financial Regulatory Agency juncto Examiner Examiner number 1 Financial year 2011 about the Tribunal of honor code of ethics Agency Financial Examiners. 42. That based on a comparison of the dismissal of judges in the Supreme Court, the judge's dismissal of the Constitution on the Constitutional Court, and the dismissal of members of the CPC, none of the Commission of Ethics/Conduct/Assembly of the Council of honor of the three institutions that have the verdicts are final and binding, but its decision is only a recommendation/proposed dismissal. 43. That in order to maintain the authority of the agency or DKPP marwah as carers and the enforcement of the code of conduct of election organisers, proposal or recommendation shall be binding DKPP compulsory and enforced by the Election organizers. So organizers of the elections can not make decision stops outside of the recommendations that had been dropped by DKPP. 44. That based on the above description, so it is entirely at odds with the principle of State of law namely legal certainty (het legaliteit


10 COPIES of the VERDICT THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id beginsel) referred to article 1 paragraph (3) juncto 28D subsection (1) of the Constitution of 1945, when the ruling of DKPP is final. With the reasons advanced by the applicant above, the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court to grant the petition for testing these laws. D. PETITUM That of whole propositions outlined above and the attached evidence, the applicant please to the Constitutional Court to give the verdict as follows: 1. Granting the applicant's petition to all. 2. Declares Article 28 paragraph (3) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decide dismissal referred to subsection (1)..." contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "in terms of the plenary meeting of the ELECTION COMMISSION decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1)..."; Thus Article 28 paragraph (3) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers to be "in terms of the plenary meeting of the ELECTION COMMISSION decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1), the Member in question was dismissed as a member of the Election Commission, the provisional ELECTION COMMISSION of the province, or district/city ELECTION COMMISSION up to publication of the decision of dismissal". 3. Declares Article 28 paragraph (4) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling referred to in paragraph (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP" contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "... the decision referred to in subsection (3) is governed more by the rules between DKPP , And the Election Commission, Bawaslu ";

23 COPIES of the VERDICT THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id so that Article 28 paragraph (4) of law number 15 year 2011 about the organizers of the election into "the complaint referred to in subsection (1), the defence referred to in subsection (2), and the taking of the verdict as referred to in paragraph (3) is governed more by the rules between DKPP, Bawaslu, and ELECTION COMMISSION". 4. Declares Article 100 paragraph (4) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)..." contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "in terms of meeting plenary Bawaslu decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)..."; So that Article 100 paragraph (4) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers to be "in terms of meeting plenary Bawaslu decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2), the Member in question was dismissed while Bawaslu Member, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors up to the publication of the decision of dismissal". 5. Declares Article 101 paragraph (1) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by Regulation DKPP" contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "... decision as referred to in article 100 is governed more by the rules between DKPP , And the Election Commission, Bawaslu "; So that Article 101 paragraph (1) of Act No. 15 of 2011 Election Organizers of being "Ordinance complaints, pleadings, and the taking of the verdict as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by the rules between DKPP, Bawaslu, and ELECTION COMMISSION".

24 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 6. Declared Article 112 paragraph (9) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "DKPP award ..." contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "DKPP set Recommendations ..."; So that Article 112 paragraph (9) of Act No. 15 of 2011 Election Organizers of being "DKPP set recommendations when conducting research and/or verification against the complaint, to listen to defense witnesses and information, as well as paying attention to the evidence". 7. Declares Article 112 paragraph (10) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP ..." contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "Recommendation DKPP ..."; So that Article 112 paragraph (10) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers to be "Recommendation DKPP be penalized or taken in a plenary meeting of the rehabilitation of DKPP". 8. Declares Article 112 paragraph (12) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final and binding," contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "binding" Recommendations; So that Article 112 paragraph (12) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers so that it becomes "a recommendation referred to in subsection (10) binding". 9. Declares Article 112 paragraph (13) of the law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "... compulsory executeth DKPP" 25 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "... compulsory implement recommendations DKPP"; So that Article 112 paragraph (13) of the law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers to be "Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION FROM the province, Kabupaten/Kota, PPS, PPK, PPLN, KPPS, KPPSLN, Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu, PPL and PPLN compulsory implement Recommendations DKPP". 10. Declares Article 113 paragraph (2) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict ..." contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945 all meant not "Taking the recommendations ..."; So that Article 113 paragraph (2) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers to be "Taking the recommendation against the examination referred to in subsection (1) done in Plenary meeting of DKPP". 11. Declares Article 28 paragraph (3) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decide dismissal referred to subsection (1) ..." does not have the force of law binds all meant not "in terms of the plenary meeting of the ELECTION COMMISSION decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1)...". 12. Declares Article 28 paragraph (4) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling referred to in paragraph (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP" does not have the force of law binding all meant not "... decision as referred to in paragraph (3)


26 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id is governed more by the rules between DKPP, Bawaslu, and ELECTION COMMISSION ". 13. Declares Article 100 paragraph (4) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2) ..." does not have the force of law binding all meant not "in terms of meeting plenary Bawaslu decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)...". 14. Declares Article 101 paragraph (1) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by the rules" do not have the power of DKPP law binding all meant not "... decision as referred to in article 100 is governed more by the rules between DKPP , And the Election Commission, Bawaslu ". 15. Declares Article 112 paragraph (9) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "DKPP award ..." does not have the force of law binding all meant not "DKPP set Recommendation ...". 16. Declares Article 112 paragraph (10) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP ..." does not have the force of law binding all recommendations not meant "DKPP ...". 17. Declares Article 112 paragraph (12) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic Indonesia 27 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Number 5246) along with the phrase "the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final and binding" does not have the force of law binding all recommendations not meant "binding". 18. Declares Article 112 paragraph (13) of the law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "... compulsory executeth DKPP" does not have the force of law binding all meant not "... compulsory implement recommendations DKPP". 7. Declares Article 113 paragraph (2) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict ..." does not have the force of law binding all meant not "Taking the recommendation ...". 20. Instructs the loading of this ruling in the news of the Republic of Indonesia as it should be. Or, if the Constitutional Court argued others, beg a fair verdict and a good (ex aequo et bono). [2.2] considering that to prove the evidence if possible, the applicant has submitted written evidence marked evidence of P-1 to P-14, the evidence in the trial date of April 16, 2013, as follows: 1. Proof of P-1: photocopy of Act No. 15 of 2011 about organizers of the elections; 2. Proof of P-2: Photocopying verdict DKPP number 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 about the Dismissal; 3. Proof of P-3: Media clippings, photocopies of the President's remarks, Minister of the Interior, the observer Sri Eko Wardani and Siti Zuhro, a coalition of civil society; 4. Proof of P-4: Photocopying newspaper clippings that reported to DKPP; 5. Proof of P-5: a photocopy of the letter of Electoral Watchdog Agency Number 529/Und/Bawaslu/X/2012, 24 October 2012, subject: 28 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Invitation; 6. Proof of P-6: Mail a photocopy of DKI Panwaslu Ketidaknetralan Disclaimer In advertising case APPSI; 7. Proof of P-7: Handling Complaints and reports are photocopies of the findings of Panwaslu JAWA in the first round and second; 8. Proof of P-8: Specific advertising case Handling Photocopying APPSI; 9. Proof of P-9: Photocopying Lawsuit to court The State (PTUN) DKI Jakarta Number 23/G/2013/PTUN Jakarta; 10. Proof of P-10: Photocopy the chart Supervisory Committee organizational structure Pemilukada DKI Jakarta by 2012 and decision letter Number Election Watchdog Bodies 581-KEP in 2011 about the determination of the members of the Supervisory Committee for the election of the head and Deputy Head of the regional province of Jakarta Special Blood; 11. Proof of P-11: Photocopying an affidavit on behalf of Ramdansyah, dated 25 February 2013:12. Proof of P-12: Photocopying clipping-media clippings; 13. Proof of P-1: Photocopying Public Eksaminasi Council Verdict Ruling the honor of Election of the Republic of Indonesia Number 25-26/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012; 14. Proof of P-2: a photocopy of the ruling Council of honor Election number 01/to-DKPP/VI/2012 and number 02/to-DKPP/VI/2012; For supporting evidence if possible, the applicant filed two witnesses who provide information under oath at the trial may 29, 2013 and 17 June 2013 i.e. Denny Alexander and Megan Mahmud Gayo, substantially explain as follows: 1. Denny Iskandar  On DKI Jakarta Pemilukada 2012 then, witnesses become campaign team mate Jokowi-Basuki. Jokowi-Governor candidate Basuki is supported by the political party and the PDI Perjuangan Generra.

29 COPIES of the VERDICT THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id  Witnesses comes from the party was held. Courage witnesses to testify in the trials of the material ACT number 15 in 2011 due to the active involvement of the witness any fact appearing in Pemilukada DKI Jakarta.  On DKI Jakarta pemilukada 2012 then very impressed and bustle, especially regarding the issue of tribal, religious, race and class (SARA). Various problems have come against the run in the elections citizens passed a year ago. That is the impression which emerges from the outside because of the emergence of the preaching of the media, especially television. But as long as the communication that takes place between Pemilukada organizers and participants of the Gubernatorial Elections are going well. The relationship between the Election Commission, Panwaslu JAWA, six pairs of candidates in the first round and the last two candidates in the second round of the atmosphere is conducive. As for the reports of witnesses related the alleged criminal offense or violation of ethics committed ELECTION COMMISSION Chief JAWA, Dahlia Umar, related voters ' list (DPT) is more to remedy the witness in order to CREDIBLY more of note so that the quality of our democracy. The verdict of guilty DKPP related problem against ELECTION COMMISSION Chief JAWA DPT JAWA in the form of warning. The verdict of DKPP is different from that experienced by the Chairman of Panwaslu DKI that led to dismissal for allegedly not neutral post Pemilukada.  that in travel Pemilukada JAWA 2012 party witnesses reportedly alleged veiled campaign advertising related APPSl by the plaintiff of Fauzi-Nachrowi told Panwaslu JAWA is a reasonable thing in a democracy. The witness's own campaign team as Jokowi-Basuki was assigned to meet call clarification Panwaslu DKI on behalf of Gubernatorial candidate. There are other parties who called this institution in terms of Market Traders Association throughout Indonesia (APPSI) that advertise are commonplace in the process of election/Pemilukada.  in the case of APPSI ad, clarification and continued with mediation failed and was succeeded by Panwaslu DKI to Gakkumdu (Integrated law enforcement). This is a procedural step that Panwaslu be mandatory. The witness did not see any question related to JAWA report Panwaslu Polda Metro Jaya at that time and it turns out that this is the point at issue the alleged base of ketidaknetralan Ramdansyah in the Sdr.


30 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Honorary Council Election Organizers (DKPP). Chairman of Panwaslu DKI reported no neutral evidence photos of the printed mass media when the Middle ad reported cases of APPSI in Polda Metro Jaya posing on the Campaign team of Fauzi Bowo-Nachrowi and journalists.  That Mr. Jokowi was surprised to get the news coverage that the Chairman of Panwaslu dismissed as Election organizers by DKPP. He had asked a witness why Ramdansyah was dismissed.  that the witness during this intense being a liason officer (liaison officer) Jokowi Team-Basuki and organizer of the ELECTION COMMISSION in this respect and Panwaslu JAWA (letter task as candidate's campaign team). Mr. Jokowi questioned this because after Pemilukada 2012 completed, already appointed more than half month there are still issues that haven't finished even be fatal against the organizers who have been providing the best service to participants Pemilukada 2012.  Already shared that understandably Pemilukada Jakarta 2012 runs smoothly and is conducive. The President's remarks, Minister, political observers, citizens and society out of Jakarta, including a pack of Jokowi that Pemilukada DKI Jakarta is an example for the province even other kabupaten/kota. The warmth of the election/Pemilukada is a barometer of the public tuned in and watched with great execution to run in accordance with the corridors of democracy. That there is mutual between the teams report to the campaign organizers are common. Likewise, the organizers reported by participants are also common. But when organizers stop related party Election was already over and no matter what the losses on the part of witnesses as participants Pemilukada is unusual. It shows no respect for the organizers are already working well. Please note once again that the Ramdansyah was dismissed after DKPP Pemilukada JAWA or half a month after Mr. Jokowi-Basuki was sworn in. Whereas there is no tort Disputes Election Results (PHPU) to the Constitutional Court. And this is a positive assessment and be an example to other areas that candidate should not be ujug-MK, attitudes to the ujug legowo and Knights Fauzi-Nachrowi accept defeat need to be examples in which all Pemilukada Department report to the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT.

31 COPIES of RULING THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id  Witnesses realized that this glorious forum that wants to put the question of legal norms related to article in law of election Organisers. That  what Sdr. Ramdansyah forward a legal event of the campaign team of compliant Fauzi Bowo-Nachrowi Metro Jaya police or Gakkumdu is an obligation of the organizer of the election. If the question does not forward the events of this law, the witness is convinced the campaign team Fauzi Bowo-Chairman of Panwaslu would Nachrowi dragging DKI to report neglect over DKPP already submitted to Panwaslu Jawa. What is already done by Ramdansyah need to be appreciated and respected. That all parties already provide awards and respect then allow witnesses to convey respect and thanks for anything that's been done by Sdr. Ramdansyah. Tommyimage him in overseeing and running the task is for the benefit of the nation and the State. These witnesses felt and experienced during Pemilukada JAWA. There is no discrimination or ketidakpantasan done Ramdansyah, but unfortunate Ramdansyah devotion leads to dismissal.  the injustice that befell Sdr. Ramdansyah in Pemilukada Jawa and perhaps also other Election organizers in Indonesia should be terminated. There must be room for the organisers terminated dismissed by DKPP. The absence of spaces that cause remedy injustice befalls Sdr. Ramdansyah. This will probably happen again if this space does not exist. 2. Megan Mahmud Gayo  On Pemilukada DKI Jakarta by 2012 to present this witness becomes head of the democracy Development Agency Bakesbangpol Nation Unity Jakarta, this field who did coordination between organizers and participants of the election or Pemilukada. The existence of these institutions to help facilitate pemilukada organisers and participants to run in accordance with the already established corridors.  that the Campaign Team Mate Jokowi-Basuki and Fauzi-Nachrowi is two couples who qualify in the second round of elections Governor/Deputy Governor of JAWA. Pemilukada Jakarta last year, 32 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id get national attention, both from the President, the Minister of the Interior, Menkopolhukam, even from among political observers.  a positive impression toward implementing Pemilukada JAWA 2012, delivered the lead in some of the meetings. Any witness gave appreciation to the organizers of the election, both the ELECTION COMMISSION and Panwaslu Jawa. Witnesses say thank you in a meeting held at the peak of Panwaslu DKI Jakarta in November 2012. Gubernatorial period 2007-2012, Fauzi Bowo, also convey thanks for tommyimage Panwaslu JAWA in the meeting audience Panwaslu and provincial Government of DKI, shortly before Mr. Gubernatorial picked up the family, leaving City Hall.  extended Appreciation to the organizers who have high dedication to the job, it is commonplace. Witness as the builders of the politics in the province of JAWA, do so. But the policy done DKPP course altogether surprising. Outside estimates of the witnesses. There is no defense against a brother of Ramdansyah, the Chairman of Panwaslu JAWA, declared dismissed DKPP.  that the holding of Elections JAWA 2012 running smoothly. Participation in the successful election of Panwaslu JAWA JAWA is very significant. This is seen in the settlement of cases of voters ' list (DPT), where many options can not pick on the first round, but then can pick in the second round, after the ELECTION COMMISSION encourage JAWA JAWA Panwaslu to open the posko registration to correct the DPT DPT deemed unfavourable by DKPP. Not to mention, the efforts of Panwaslu JAWA in preventing potential conflict issues into SARA, which can appear in DKI Jakarta, Chairman of Panwaslu DKI trip unfortunately stopped after it was reported to the Council the honor of Election Organizers or DKPP. The witness did not see Civil Ramdansyah offender or one-sided to one candidate. So it's reasonable if in question got appreciation from many parties.

33 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id in addition to the witnesses, the applicant also filed a one (1) expert, Dr. Suparji, S.H., M.H., who heard his statement under oath in the trial may 29, 2013, in anyway explains as follows:  judicial review petitions filed by the applicant is a case that occurred in the sphere of State Administration Law. Therefore, without having excessive pretensions, and reduces the sense of explanation from the other disciplines, the Experts argued that the explanation from the angle of legal science State Administration should be seen already has a relatively high relevance compared with the explanation from the other disciplines. This is certainly with reference to the principle of proportionality, i.e. by putting the discipline of the law of State administration as an instrument for conducting an analysis of the problems arising in the conduct of the election.  Elections (elections) is the means to realize the people's sovereignty in the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Unity, as mandated by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. The election is a very important part in building a democratic political system. The powers that are essentially owned and are in the hands of the people, through their representatives to the mandated Elections either in the legislature or Executive.  Through Elections occur the legitimacy of power which is run by the Government. Not an exaggeration then said the election is the process of contract social contract between the people and the representatives of the people and Government of democratically.  Organizing the Elections must continuously attempted to repair its quality to meet the requirements of an honest, fair, direct, free and secret, public and accountable. One effort is to shape Election Board mend Honor Election Organizers (DKPP). Election Organizers mengamanahkan DKPP ACT have the authority to judge the ethics of Election organisers, namely the Election Commission, Bawaslu and range up to the kabupaten/kota. Formation of DKPP it based on experience, the organizers of the election nobody controls.


34 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id  selected Election Organizers because of the public's trust (public trust). This public confidence should be maintained in order to honor the election organisers are not damaged. Presence of DKPP expected can improve the quality of the upcoming elections. The existence of the new institution as DKPP first formed, is expected to improve the performance of the two agencies are considered to be still less than optimal on the previous Election. Structurally DKPP is not higher than the ELECTION COMMISSION and Bawaslu. Surveillance against the ELECTION COMMISSION was carried out by the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and a Bawaslu. DKPP not new judiciary is higher than the other.  Review of the function kelembagaannya, which is an institution in charge of DKPP breaches the code of conduct of election organisers and is an aggregation function of organizing elections. The intent of the founding legislation is made as an independent institution DKPP, free from influence, the will, or the control of the Executive power and not responsible to the branch of power.  Based on the authority of the individual concerned an award then DKPP, would violate the ethics or not. Thus, the ruling does not make DKPP declared guilty or innocent, but it is limited to making a recommendation to the size of improper and inappropriate. This is in accordance with the existence of ethics as an instrument to arouse consciousness to be humane. Substantively, ethics is different with the law, because of conduct applicable to a particular profession, while environmental law applies to the public. On the side of Iain, sanctions against violations of ethics guidance, in the form of sanctions against violations of the law in the form of prosecution.  Article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 reads, "Indonesia is a country of laws". Furthermore, article 28D paragraph (1) States, "every person has the right to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law". State law of Indonesia will be able to create a democratic, people's welfare when it can create three qualities: stability, predictability, and fairness. Predictability means that the law gives the certainty of an action that will be performed. Secondly, stability means that the law can accommodate the competing interests in the community. Third, the law must be able to create fairness i.e. Justice. If there is no standard 35 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id what is just and what is good, then in the long run of power could lose legitimacy.  legal certainty as one of the purposes of the law affected the flow of legal positivism. According to John Austin, in order to achieve legal certainty, it must be separated from moral laws. Other positivist thinkers, Hans Kelsen, legal positivism is getting tight. In fact, the law is not only a moral issue is released from the instead it should also mummified from the evils of non legal evils like philosophy, politics, psychology, economics, and social (reine rechtslehre).  Hans Kelsen's view to purify the legal evils of the evils of non law influenced the development of the Philosophy of science. A stream of pure theory of law, including Hans Kelsen, born of a strong philosophical basis and not just momentary ideas that respond to particular issues or conditions. The thinking of Hans Kelsen is capable of affecting the legal thinking in many parts of the world. The legal thoughts of the system began a sharp turn into monistik. Hans Kelsen agreed with teachings of Austin that the law must be separated from moral. Even Hans Kelsen consistent refrain is not memperbicangkan the abstract philosophy of law, therefore, the law must be separated from all considerations of politics, economics, psychology and so on. The shifting viewpoints fraction establishing this legal science ripening State of the World Science in the late 20th century, the global face of change very radically. If throughout the modern era, the science is meant by just enough through mechanistic approach, but in the era of postmodernism has changed toward plurality and organismic science. Postmodernism as a critique of modernism and comes out of the tradition of positivistic. Bernapaskan philosophy of postmodernism are United in their rejection of "big stories" (grand narrative), rejected the thought of dikotomis (binary opposition), reject totalisasi and brought the knowledge. The emphasis of postmodernism on right of different (right to vary) so there is no single truth. With the style dekonstruksinya, postmodernism is disconnected (discontinuity) claims the truth lived along with the rest of the rationality that justify it. Postmodernism has turned these viewpoints, the dominant Modernist House in the area of the law.

36 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id  positivism during this time, no longer in a State of normal science. The flow of critical legal studies, taking the role of critical legal positivism kemapanan challenging. In the era of postmodernism, this law became an open area.  the description above is meant to review the provisions of article 112 paragraph (12) of the ACT of election Organizers that States violation of ethics related DKPP verdict is final and binding. With this provision, the decision compulsory DKPP implemented so that there is no other remedy for the parties who decided guilty.  Ethics enforcement agency Decisions which are final and binding potentially contrary to the principle of Justice that became the basis of State law. Because, when the organizers of the election may submit new evidence, the trial as a container of proof will not be held.  the norms set forth in the ACT of Election Organizers more oriented on the principle of legal certainty and it is often contrary to fundamental justice. Whereas, should the principle of legal certainty should be linear with the principle of Justice. The nature of the State law is justice more noteworthy compared to the principle of legal certainty. Legal certainty in the law shall be run in with the law of linear material. Justice will not be created if the law only set out the procedural aspects. For example, in taking the decision on an alleged violation of the ethics of the election organizers, in addition to the procedural aspect views, must also be seen success organizing the Election and the existence of harm that might be suffered by the participants of the election.  Therefore, given his position as an institution Builder DKPP externally and not the perpetrator the power of Justice, but an institution that aimed to keep the notability as well as the dignity of the organizers of the election independently, free from influence, the will or control of branch ekesekutif of power, then the verdict should DKPP recommendation, is not final and binding.  the Verdict should provide another remedy. Because, in most cases the institution code of ethics in Indonesia, his decision also is not 37 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id final and mandatory enforceable, but gives recommendations and their implementation depends on the institution authorities.  Based on that explanation, then to avoid decisions that can interfere with the holding of the elections due to the decisions that exceed the authority of DKPP and verdict that is contrary to the Constitution particularly Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), article 112 paragraph (10), article 112 paragraph (12) and article 112 paragraph (13) of the ACT of election Organizers need to be reviewed and should be cancelled. [2.3] considering that the President delivered the remarks in the trial on 7 may 2013 and submit affidavits are received at the Registrar of the Court on June 26, 2013 which in anyway explains as follows: i. SUBJECT MATTER of the PETITION of the APPLICANT 1. That the applicant as citizens who have the right to be the organizer of the elections but was dismissed by DKPP (hereinafter abbreviated DKPP) and followed up with the dismissal of a member and the Chairman of Panwaslu DKI by Bawaslu. 2. That, according to the applicant, the decision of a Board of Honour election Organizers dismiss the applicant from his post as Chairman of Panwaslu DKI that is final is not appropriate because the Agency was not a holder of DKPP power of Justice and should have the form of an award is a recommendation. It is contrary to Article 24 Constitution. 3. That according to the applicant the decision of DKPP should not be final because it requires further approval from Bawaslu. This gives rise to legal uncertainty and is contrary to article 1 paragraph (3) and article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution. 4. That in essence the applicant contended that Article 28 paragraph (3) and subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10) and subsection (13), and section 113 subsection (2) of the Act 15 of 2011


38 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id about the holding of Elections is contrary to article 1 paragraph (3), article 24, article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (5) and article 28, paragraph (1) 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 on the Constitutional Court as amended by Act No. 8 of 2011, stating 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 State institutions. The above provision is emphasized in the explanation, that the definition of "constitutional rights" are the rights set forth in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, then the first must explain and prove: a. Credentials in the petition for a quo as referred to in article 51 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as amended by Act No. 8 of 2011; b. rights and/or authority konstitusionalnya in the qualification which is considered to have been harmed by the enactment of the legislation being tested; c. Loss of rights and/or constitutional authority the applicant as a result of the enactment of laws that petitioned testing. Further the Constitutional Court has given understanding and limitation of cumulative losses 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-111/2005 and subsequent Awards), must meet the five terms, namely: 39 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id a. the existence of the applicant's constitutional rights provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945; b. the applicant's constitutional rights that are considered by the applicant have been wronged by an act that was tested; c. Constitutional losses that the claimant 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; e. of the possibility that by dikabulkannya the petition then postulated that a constitutional disadvantage will not or no longer occur. Over things, let the unquestionable importance The Applicant does is just right as the party considers the rights and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed over the enactment of the provisions of article 28 paragraph (3) and subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10) and subsection (13), and section 113 subsection (2) of the Act 15 years 2011 Organizers of elections. Against the position of the law (legal standing) of the applicant. The Government handed over entirely to the Court to judge and break the chain. III. GOVERNMENT EXPLANATION OVER the PETITION APPEALED for MATERIAL in TEST 1. That election is the form or mechanism of the system of Government of a country in an effort to embody the sovereignty of the people. One of the cornerstones of democracy is the principle of equality and independence of each of the branches of State power so that each branch the power to monitor and compensate each other (checks and balances). In filling the post of head of Government and representative institutions, Member of Constitution determines through the general election, that the principle of mutual antarpenyelenggara and offset, supervising participants, and supervisor of elections;

40 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 2. Article 22E subsection (1) of the Constitution states that the holding of elections is implemented directly, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years, this can be realized when implemented by the organizers of the elections have integrity, professionalism, and accountability. Further to article 22E subsection (5) of the Constitution states that elections be held by an Electoral Commission that is national, permanent and independent. In order to control the realization of the general election, Iangsung, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair required the presence of a supervision order for the election really is implemented based on the principle of elections and legislation. The phrase "an Electoral Commission" in the Constitution does not refer to a institutions name, but refers to the function of conducting elections that are national, fixed and independent. Thus, the function of organizing elections have not only carried out by the Commission of Elections (ELECTION COMMISSION), but also included the institution of elections supervisors in this General Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu). In organizing the Election there is also the Honorary Council of the organizers of the election, as the Agency in charge of handling violations of the code of conduct of election Organisers which is an aggregation function of organizing elections. 3. DKPP is a further development of the institution of Honorary Council (DK), the Election Commission, the fittings of the province, and a Bawaslu formed to handle violations of the code of conduct of election Organisers previously existing under law number 22 in 2007 about the Election Organizers. The Honorary Council positions at that time was experiencing difficulties in carrying out the functions of the supervision code of ethics against the holding of Elections, as in the decision issued by the Council of honor are still far from a sense of Justice in society against the organizers of the elections because of the honor Council so often in decisions relating to the Organization of a code of conduct is difficult to be implemented in terms of menindakianjuti/execution of the decision, since the formation of DKPP 41 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI Downloaded from your pages : www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id made through plenary meeting ELECTION COMMISSION and hear the pelanggaraan conducted the election organizers. On the basis of the need to maintain the independence and neutrality of election organisers as well as improving the quality of organizing elections, became an important and strategic needs to form the Council of honor Penyelengara independent elections, and was not part of the fittings and Bawslu which are then arranged in the law number 15 Year of Election Organisers. 4. The position of DKPP becomes important and strategic in the democratic system that is built with respect for the law (the rule of law) and ethics (the rule of ethics) simultaneously. "The Rule of Law ' work based on the" Code of Law ", while" the Rule of Ethics "work based on the" Code of Ethics ", which penegakannya is done through an independent judicial process, imparsial, and open, i.e. the judiciary law (court of law) to legal issues, ethics and judicial (court of ethics) to ethical issues. 5. DKPP formed to investigate and decide complaints and/or reports of alleged violations of the code of ethics committed by members of the Election Commission, members of the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, members of the ELECTION COMMISSION district/city, members of the members of the PPS, PPK, Member of goalie PPLN KPPS, Member of KPPSLN, a member of goalie Bawaslu Bawaslu Member Panwaslu province and Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu members, members of the Election Supervisors and members of the Field Supervisor of elections abroad. Membership of DKPP comes from elements of the ELECTION COMMISSION, Bawaslu, and community leaders, so that a breach of the code of ethics in deciding which concerns the Election organisers are already represented by the presence of members of the ELECTION COMMISSION and a member of Bawaslu member as part of DKPP. 6. DKPP award after conducting research and/or verification against the complaint is, then listen to the pleadings and the description of the witnesses, as well as paying attention to the evidence. The verdict in the form of sanctions or rehabilitation DKPP taken in plenary meeting of DKPP. Sanctions may include a written reprimand, suspension, or dismissal of a permanent award is final and binding and mandatory enforceable by the organizers of the election. Not in this case DKPP


42 a COPY of the VERDICT THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id decided in administrative dismissal of election organizers who violate the code of ethics, but the mandatory DKPP actionable decisions in the form of Decree of election organisers. The verdict is not the DKPP ultra petita DKPP authority is conferred by legislation in alleged violation of ethics that break done organizers of elections. 7. That the award shall be final and binding DKPP, this is related to the following matters: a. the problem of the application of norms of ethics from the organizers of the elections, because the purpose of a code of ethics is to keep the notability and the integrity of the profession. b. related to stages in the elections that had been set the previous/ongoing, so the legality of elections secured and held honestly and fairly. c. provide legal certainty and a warning to ELECTION COMMISSION and election organisers as Bawaslu in carrying out each stage to be more careful and neutral without favoring one of the participants of the election. 8. Against the presumption of the applicant stating the verdict DKPP recommendation should, according to the Government, currently in Indonesia's attempt to have the system there are several enforcement agencies a code of conduct in public offices, among others: a. in the area of Justice, the judicial Commission contained, in addition to the existence of the Tribunal of honor judge (MKH) in the internal system of the Supreme Court. In the Constitutional Court is also an honorary Judge of the Tribunal (MKH) of the Constitutional Court; b. In law enforcement agencies, there is a KOMPOLNAS for the police and the State Attorney Commission to the Attorney General's Office as well as the Commission of ethics for CCA; c. in the environment legislature, namely the House and DPD there has been Honorary Agency representatives and Honorary Agency DPD. The results of the examination of the code of ethics enforcement agency be final and binding and mandatory enforceable because it is associated with the position, notability and to keep the dignity of the individual as a noble profession (officum nobile).

43 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 9. Against the presumption that the applicant felt right as citizens to be disadvantaged because of the Election organisers dismissed by DKPP, according to the Government it is unwarranted because the applicant had participated as an organizer of the elections, but the ruling of DKPP is more a problem of implementation of the Act so that finally the applicant was dismissed from his post as the organizer of the election, but anyway it is the right of every citizen who has unqualified to participate to participate in elections whether unaccompanied, as voters nor Election organizers. 10. That the existence of DKPP not in order to negate/remove function of supervision and the construction conducted by the ELECTION COMMISSION and Bawaslu because each institution has different functions and tasks. The matters dealt with and resolved by the ELECTION COMMISSION and the holding of Elections is a Bawaslu related, whereas things that dealt with violations of ethics related DKPP is by penyelengara the election. IV. CONCLUSION based on the above explanation, the Government appealed to the Chairman of the Tribunal Judges of the Constitutional Court/screening, adjudicate, and disconnect the application Testing law 15 in 2011 about the organizers of the elections against the 1945 Constitution can give a verdict as follows: 1. The applicant has not Stated the position of the law (legal standing); 2. Rejects the application for testing the appellant entirely or at least declare inadmissible the applicant's application (niet ontvankelijk verklaard); 3. Accept the description of the Government as a whole; 4. Declare that Article 28 paragraph (3) and subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10), and subsection (13), and section 113 subsection (2) of the Act 15 in 2011 about the conduct of the Elections is not incompatible with article 1 paragraph (3), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (5) and article 28, paragraph (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945.

44 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id [2.4] considering that the House of representatives (DPR) gave the description and submit affidavits in the trial may 29, 2013 which in anyway explains as follows: a. the PROVISIONS of Act No. 15 of 2011 ABOUT ORGANIZERS of ELECTIONS PETITIONED TESTING AGAINST the Constitution of the REPUBLIC of INDONESIA in 1945 The Applicant in their petition filed for testing upon Article 28 paragraph (3) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decide dismissal as referred to subsection (1)... "; Article 28 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling referred to in paragraph (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP"; Article 100 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)..."; Article 101 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "... taking the ruling by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by Regulation DKPP"; Article 112 paragraph (9) along with the phrase "DKPP award ..."; Article 112 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP ..."; Article 112 paragraph (12) along with the phrase "the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final"; Article 112 paragraph (13) along with the phrase "... compulsory executeth DKPP"; Article 113 paragraph (2) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict against the examination ..." Law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers. As for the sound of the aforementioned articles, namely: 1. Article 28 paragraph (3) "in terms of plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1), the Member in question was dismissed as a member of the Election Commission, the provisional ELECTION COMMISSION of the province, or district/city ELECTION COMMISSION seampai with the publication of the decision of dismissal" 2. Article 28 paragraph (4) "Ordinance a complaint referred to in subsection (1), the defence referred to in subsection (2), and the verdict of 45 COPIES THIS RULING CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id as referred to in subsection (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP" 3. Article 100 paragraph (4) "in terms of plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2), the Member in question was dismissed while Bawaslu Member, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Pangawas, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors up to the publication of the decision of dismissal" 4. Article 101 paragraph (1) "procedures for complaints, pleadings, and the taking of the verdict by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by regulation DKPP" 5. Article 112 paragraph (9) "DKPP award after conducting research and/or verification against the complaint, to listen to defense witnesses and information, as well as paying attention to the evidence" 6. Article 112 paragraph (10) "Verdict DKPP be penalized or taken in a plenary meeting of the rehabilitation of DKPP" 7. Article 112 paragraph (12) of "the verdict as mentioned in subsection (1) is final and binding" 8. Article 112 paragraph (13), "Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION FROM the province, Kabupaten/Kota, PPS, PPK, PPLN, KPPS, KPPSLN, Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu, PPL and the obligatory PPLN executeth DKPP" 9. Section 113 subsection (2) "taking of the verdict against the examination referred to in subsection (1) done in Plenary meeting of DKPP" The Applicant assumes the provision of article 28 paragraph (3) and subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), paragraph 10), paragraph (12) and (13) as well as Section 113 subsection (2) of Act No. 15 of 2011 is contrary to article 1 paragraph (3) Article 22E, subsection (1), article 22E subsection (5) and section 28D subsection (1) of the Act of 1945.


46 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution, reads: Country Indonesia is a country of Laws Article 22E subsection (1) of the Constitution, reads: the election is carried out directly, free, General, secret, honest and fair every five years Article 22E subsection (5) of the Constitution the elections organised by an Electoral Commission that is national , fixed and independent of article 28D paragraph (1) everyone has the right to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law b. RIGHTS and/or CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY DEEMS the APPLICANT HAD BEEN HARMED by the ENACTMENT of Act No. 15 of 2011 ABOUT the ORGANIZERS of ELECTIONS a. Elections Organizers already ACT That clearly and emphatically placing DKPP as external coaching institutions against the ranks of Election organisers. External patrons should not have institutions are given the authority to disconnect with the verdicts are final so as to negate the authority and supervision of the construction, owned by Bawaslu and ELECTION COMMISSION as stipulated in the ACT on the election Organizers. The function of the dinegasikan supervision and coaching here is in the process of dismissal of the ranks of organizers of the election raised by the ELECTION COMMISSION and Bawaslu appointed through a decision in plenary meeting and the Election Commission, Bawaslu however lunch is not through plenary meetings and ELECTION COMMISSION but by Bawaslu DKPP with verdicts are final, this has resulted in a process of coaching and supervision there is legal uncertainty related agencies where authorized This is contrary to article 1 paragraph (3) juncto Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution. b. that because the Agency is not a holder of DKPP power of justice so that it is not very precise in characterizing the Verdicts DKPP equals the verdict of the judiciary which is final and binding, 47 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id should not make the ruling but DKPP recommendations, so that the norm in the LAW stating the Election Organisers DKPP award is contrary to the norms of Justice Power arrangements as referred to in Article 24 Constitution. c. that the nature in a final court ruling with a decision of the State officials is a different matter. In the Court ruling, the nature of the final meant the absence of remedy that could be made against the verdict, while the final nature of the decision in a show that does not require the approval of the decision further and can directly diekskusi, whereas the ruling of DKPP can not be directly executed in the absence of a decision of the Election Commission, and the decision Bawaslu from a Commission of ethics like DKPP seharunya not be final because it requires further approval from Bawaslu and ELECTION COMMISSION to issue the decision is final. d. That he delivered with no Verdict DKPP recommendation or need further approval from Bawaslu and Election Commission, already raises legal uncertainty of the process stops and has conflicted with article 1 paragraph (3) juncto Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution. C. DESCRIPTION of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Against the evidence of the applicant as set forth in the second petition for a quo, the HOUSE conveys the following things: 1. The position of the law (Legal Standing) Applicant qualifications that must be met by the applicant as a Party have been arranged in the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1) of LAW Number 24 year 2003 on the Constitutional Court (hereinafter abbreviated as the ACT of the Constitutional Court), which stated that "the applicant is a party which considers the right and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of legislation , that is: a. an 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;

48 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id c. 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 set forth in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945." Provision of an explanation of article 51 paragraph (1) confirms that only the rights explicitly regulated in the Constitution only includes "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 1945 CONSTITUTION then must first clarify 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;

49 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 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. 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. Against the position of the law (legal standing), the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 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) 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/2007. 2. Testing the top of article 28 paragraph (3) and subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), paragraph 10), paragraph (12) and (13) as well as Section 113 subsection (2) of Act No. 15 of 2011 about Election Organizers are contrary to article 1 paragraph (3), article 22E subsection (1), article 22E subsection (5) and section 28D subsection (1) of the Constitution of 1945. Against the application of testing law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers in particular related to the authority of the Board of Honour Election Organizers (DKPP), the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES delivered a description as follows: Against the petition for Election Organizers ACT in particular testing related to the authority of the Board of Honour Election Organizers (DKPP), the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES delivered a description as follows: a. the Constitution gave birth to the electoral institutions are regulated in article 22E subsection (5). Special about the system--then the Article 22E subsection (5) confirms that "Elections organised by an Electoral Commission that is national, fixed, and independent". Asked by an explanation of the Electoral Commission, where the Electoral Commission


50 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id what is meant is the generic name of the organizer of the election then the Commission within an organization, there are several providers. In the period of 2009 and earlier, Election organizers consists only of ELECTION COMMISSION as the implementing agency (body of execution) and the supervisory agencies as Bawaslu (body of control), with the inception of the ACT Election Organizers present Honorary Board Election Organizers also (DKPP) as the Agency's internal Court (quasi yudicial body), in other words implementing elections is an institution which is a clump of a third organ that carries out the internal agency functions and controls the offset each other internally (checks and balances) to produce the good conduct of the Election. b. Setting of DKPP in law the organizers of elections meant that this institution is the institution in charge of handling violations of the code of conduct of election Organisers and is the Union of the function of organizing elections. DKPP is not a separate institution himself, not being part of the ELECTION COMMISSION and not also part of Bawaslu, this is based on the code of ethics violations because many organizers of elections does not dealt raises uncertainty handling cases of violations of the code of conduct of election organisers, the code of ethics cases conducted by the ELECTION COMMISSION revealed in the implementation of the supervisory functions of the PARLIAMENT in the election, the Mafia Panja DKPP formerly ad hoc in nature and will be made in accordance with the needs of the organizer of the election makes a lot of cases is not revealed because of the interests of certain parties. c. Ethics Election organizers are set forth in the ACT of Election Organizers created by lawmakers in this House and the Government to enforce the rules of conduct of the Election conducted by the organizer of the election. After going through some of the experiences of the election and related offences Pemilukada code of conduct, then the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES and the Government feel important enter Ordinances and handling mechanisms for infringement of the code of conduct of election organisers are more directional.

51 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id d. Honorary Board Election Organizers (DKPP) "expelled" from the ELECTION COMMISSION so it is not controlled by the ELECTION COMMISSION itself and its functions become very self-sufficient and independent. Thus created a body of its own, as one special election Organizer functions to handle violations of the code of conduct. e. Election Organizers ACT in drafting the law formation also has already done several times the associated simulation handling violations of the code of conduct, with the hope of organizing direct elections, General, free, fair and just can be more assured. Thus, in law a quo set that DKPP cannot be filled by vain people, because they were elected by the PARLIAMENT and the Government as community leaders who understand very well about the elections and uphold the ethical conduct of the elections. f. Related arguments the applicant in their petition that the existence of authority DKPP to drop the decision final and binding, the HOUSE argues that:-In view of past experience, it is in the ACT of election Organizers guarantee the legal certainty of someone linked the question of ethics is given authority by statute to resolved by DKPP. Award is final and binding guarantees legal certainty and finality of settlement time considering the general election have a series of phases and programs that have specific time sequence. -Object cases handled DKPP is personal behavior or people per diver who ensures the integrity and a proved impartiality every Election Organizers that can be reported by anyone a citizen of Indonesia. Therefore, in terms of guaranteeing individual ethics as the organizer of the election, the verdict is final and binding will provide the certainty and convenience of Conducting elections seyogianya clear of the practice-the practice of cheating. g. against the arguments of the applicant in the application number 17 to a posita with number 10 about the steps the follow-up ELECTION COMMISSION and 52 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Bawaslu related ruling of DKPP which are final and binding, the REPRESENTATIVES argued that the ELECTION COMMISSION and a Bawaslu step by law obliged to follow up by publishing a Decree to its administrative purposes. For example, issuing the ruling of DKPP dismiss members of Panwaslu a province, then a Bawaslu was at central level mandatory follow up by publishing a Decree of dismissal in question from his position as a member of Panwaslu. It's only a Bawaslu decision administrative, since the dismissal is valid since the verdict read out in plenary session DKPP DKPP held openly to the public. Similarly when the verdict dismissed by members it is the ELECTION COMMISSION DKPP or Bawaslu Center, then mail a lunch administratively should be poured in the form of a presidential decree that applies a lunch from the date of the verdict was read or pronounced DKPP in plenary session that was open to the public. The mechanism of handling code violations this Election Organizers set up with hopes of becoming a system in enforcing the code of conduct and to obtain legal certainty, as the last bastion for those seekers of Justice. h. Related arguments of the applicant in the application for a 10 digit posita mentions that DKPP inappropriately when described as other agencies which perform the powers of Justice, because "other agencies that function with regard to the powers of the judiciary is governed by the Act" ' in question is other agencies associated with the functions of judicial bodies, namely the State Attorney and the police, LAWMAKERS argued that the law can give authority to any agency , including DKPP which is quasi judicial institution, the Tribunal has the right internally, an award binding and not just punish people and organizations but also "improve the flawed process" or "remedy the process" as performed by the Court "quasi yudicial" in General.

53 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id In the ACT of Election Organisers, shaper of the Act gives the authority to the Agency as a quasi DKPP yudicial areas such as violations of the code of conduct to make the verdict is final and binding, as a statute quo also gives the same authority against Bawaslu as quasi yudicial institutions for the settlement of the question of the Election dispute, this is a policy choice of law (legal policy) that can not be tested , unless it was done arbitrarily (willekeur) and beyond the authority of lawmakers (detournement de pouvoir), in other words the policy thus became the authority of lawmakers in this joint President of the PARLIAMENT (vide the ruling of the Constitutional Court the number 006/PUU-III/2005, page 21, and number 5/PUU-V/2007, p. 72). Based on the reasons above then the provision in article 28 paragraph (3), subsection (4); Article 100 paragraph (4); Article 101 paragraph (1); Article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10), subsection (12), paragraph (3) and section 113 subsection (2) of the ACT the organisers of the election, do not conflict with the provisions of article 1 paragraph (3), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (5) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. Thus PARLIAMENT, captions to be consideration for the Tribunal is the judge of the Constitutional Court to check, disconnect, and adjudicate the matter a quo and can give a verdict as follows: 1. Receive information PARLIAMENT as a whole; 2. Declares Article 28 paragraph (3), subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10), subsection (12), paragraph (3) and section 113 subsection (2) of the ACT does not conflict with Election Organisers article 1 paragraph (3), article 22E subsection (1) and paragraph (5) and Article 28D paragraph (1) with the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945. 3. Declares Article 28 paragraph (3), subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10), subsection (12), paragraph (3) and section 113 subsection (2) of the ACT fixed Election Organizers have the force of law as binding.


54 COPIES of the VERDICT THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id [2.5] considering that the Honorary Council of the Republic of Indonesia Election Organisers had delivered a letter Number 501/DKPP/IV/2013 subject plenary session about the test of the LAW number 15 year 2011, dated 25 April 2013, which is substantially as follows. 1. that DKPP thank the Constitutional Court which gives the opportunity to DKPP to give information in the plenary session of testing the LAW number 15 year 2011; 2. that DKPP is implementing legislation and therefore DKPP will respect and implement anything decided upon related laws, either by LAW or by the creation of the Constitutional Court, so that viewed the no need to involve itself in the testing related legislation; and 3. that DKPP entrusted entirely to the wisdom of the Assembly of the Constitutional Court Judges examine the case and hang up. [2.6] considering that the Election Watchdog Agency of the Republic of Indonesia gave the description and submit affidavits in the trial on 7 may 2013 which substantially as follows. A. About Appointing the plaintiff as a member of Panwaslu Kada DKI Jakarta 1. That under article 71 of the Act number 22 of 2007 juncto law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers mentioned that Panwaslu Province was formed at the latest 1 (one) month prior to the first stages of organizing the elections begins and ends no later than 2 (two) months after the holding of Elections throughout the stages of completion. 2. That on the basis of article 7 of the regulation number 1 of 2010 Bawaslu about procedures for the appointment of members of the Provincial Election Supervisor Panita, a Supervisory Committee Elections Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Election Supervisory Committee, and the Election field, stating that the members of Panwaslu Province established with Decision Bawaslu as much as 3 (three) members 55 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Panwaslu Province elected after going through the test of feasibility and appropriateness. 3. That on the basis of Article 13 of the regulation number 1 of 2010 Bawaslu stated that Bawaslu form selection team to help perform networking and screening against members of Panwaslu Province. 4. That under article 37 of Regulation number 1 of 2010 Bawaslu stated that Bawaslu tested the feasibility and appropriateness of the names submitted by the selection team chosen for the next three (3) names as a member of Panwaslu Province. 5. That based on the decision letter of the election Watchdog Agency Number 270-KEP in 2011 about the determination of the members of the selection team members of the Supervisory Committee for the election of the head and Deputy Head of the region in the framework of the general election the Governor and Vice Governor of Jakarta in 2011, dated May 26, 2011, Bawaslu set 3 (three) members of the selection team name Panwaslu Kada DKI Jakarta in 2011. 6. That on October 1, 2011 has held the test of eligibility and Appropriateness of prospective members of Panwaslu Kada Jakarta, based on the letter of invitation Number 548/Bawaslu/IX/2011, dated September 30, 2011, against the 6 (six) candidate Member of Panwaslu Kada DKI Jakarta, namely: a. Ramdansyah b. Abdur Rahman Umar c. Iwan Sulaiman Soetasno d. Muhammad Jufri e. Deddy p. Tambunan f. Muhaimin 7. That on 4 October 2011, Bawaslu set three (3) names of members of the Committee of Trustees Elections Jakarta with Decree Number Election Watchdog Bodies 581-KEP in 2011 about the determination of the members of the Supervisory Committee for the election of the head and Deputy Head of the regional province of Jakarta, i.e. on behalf of Abdul Rahman Umar, Muhammad Jufri, and Ramdansyah.

56 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 8. That are based on legislation, appointment and determination of Sdr. Ramdansyah as a member of Panwaslu Kada DKI Jakarta is in compliance with the legislation. B. About Teradunya the applicant to Honour Board Election Organizers 1. That on 10 October 2012, members of Panwaslu Jakarta on behalf of Ramdansyah complained to the Election Organizers Honorary Council for allegedly violating the code of conduct of election organisers by m. Said Bakhri related Advertising Market Traders Association case Indonesia (APPSI). 2. That on the basis of article 3 of the regulation DKPP number 2 in 2012 about the Beracara code of ethics guidelines for Organisers of the election, States that the alleged violation of the code of conduct could be filed with the complaint in the form of DKPP and/or reports filed by Election Organizers, participants of the election, the campaign team, community, and/or voters. 3. That the complaint by the community for alleged violation of the code of conduct of election organisers can be done directly to DKPP without notice to Bawaslu. C. About Amar's ruling Council Honorary organizer of Pemillu No. 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 1. That Amar Verdict DKPP Rl number 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 dated 31 October 2012 decided: 1) dropped the sanctions in the form of dismissal of Fixed to Teradu as the Chairman of Panwaslu Jakarta on behalf of Ramdansyah and Panwaslu membership Jakarta, counted since dibacakannya this ruling. 2) commanded the Electoral Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) to follow up on the decision of a Board of Honour this Election Organisers in accordance with legislation. 2. That on the basis of Article 112 paragraph (13) of the Act No. 15 of 2011 Election Commission, alleging that the ELECTION COMMISSION of the province, Kabupaten/Kota, PPS, PPK, PPLN, KPPS, KPPSLN, Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu 57 provinces, a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu, PPL and the obligatory PPLN executeth DKPP. 3. That on the basis of article 17 of the regulation Bawaslu number 11 in 2012 about the code of conduct of election Organisers declare that: (1) the election Organizers who violate the code of conduct is sanctions. (2) the sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) in the form of: a. a written reprimand; b. suspension; or c. the dismissal; 4. That the Board of honour Election Organizers sent a letter Number 170/DKPP/XI/2012 dated November 5, 2012 to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees Election Verdict DKPP Subject No. 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012, which in essence asked that executeth Bawaslu DKPP number 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012. D. Decree Of Election Watchdog Agency Number 712-KEP YEAR 2012 1. That is the agency or Official Bawaslu Tata Usaha Negara which carry out the Affairs of Government based on laws applicable invitation, so the decision of the Election Watchdog Agency contains The State legal action based on the legislation in force, which are concrete, individual, and final. 2. That the Verdict against DKPP number 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 dated October 31, 2012, Bawaslu has been following up the verdict of a quo with carrying out the Plenary Meeting on 2 November 2012 who decided to immediately follow through on the ruling Council of DKPP on Wednesday October 31, 2012 by publishing a Decree Chairman Bawaslu Rl about sanctions in the form of dismissal of the Remains to the Chairman of Panwaslu Jakarta on behalf of Ramdansyah. 3. That on the basis of Article 99 of the Act number 15 in 2011 about Election Organizers declare: 1) Member Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election 58 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id the field, and Foreign Election Supervisors stopped intertemporal because: a. dies; b. resigned with acceptable reasons; c. unable to remain; or d. dismissed with disrespect. 2) Dismissed as referred to in paragraph (1) letter d if: a. no longer qualify as a member of Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, and Panwaslu Election field; b. violates the oath/promise of Office and a code of conduct; c. unable to perform duties during 3 (three) months in a row without a valid reason; d. criminal was sentenced to prison on the basis of a court decision has acquired legal force anyway because doing criminal acts which were threatened with imprisonment 5 (five) years or older; e. criminal sentenced based on the Court ruling which has gained force of law remains for committing criminal acts of Election; or f. did not attend the plenary meeting that the task and obligations during 3 (three) times in a row without an acceptable reason. 3) dismissal of members who meet the conditions referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2) was performed with the provisions: a. Member Bawaslu by the President; b. Member Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Watchdog Bawaslu by. 4. Article 48 of regulation Bawaslu number 10 in 2012 on the establishment of Replacement, termination, and Between the time the general election Supervisory Committee, the Provincial Superintendent


59 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Election Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Election Supervisory Committee, the watchdog of the elections, and Foreign Election Supervisors stated that: (1) a member of the Provincial, Bawaslu Panwaslu Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors stopped intertemporal because: a. dies; b. discharged his duty period; c. resigned with acceptable reasons; d. unable to remain; or e. dismissed with disrespect. (2) Dismissed as referred to in paragraph (1) the letter e when: a. no longer qualify as a member of the provincial, Bawaslu Panwaslu Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, and Panwaslu Election field; b. violates the oath/promise of Office and a code of conduct; c. unable to perform the duties on an ongoing basis or was unable to remain in a row for 3 (three) months; d. criminal was sentenced to prison on the basis of a court decision has acquired legal force anyway because doing criminal acts which were threatened with imprisonment 5 (five) years or older; e. criminal sentenced based on the Court ruling which has gained force of law remains for committing criminal acts of Election; or f. did not attend the plenary meeting that the task and obligations during 3 (three) times in a row without a valid reason; 5. That under article 53 of Regulation No. 10 in 2012 Bawaslu stated that; (1) the dismissal of a Province has fulfilled Bawaslu conditions as referred to in article 48 paragraph (2) letter a, letter b, letter 60 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id c, and the letter f is preceded by verification by DKPP over complaints of election organizers, participants of the election, the campaign team, community, and/or the selector is equipped with a clear identity. (2) the dismissal of a member of Panwaslu Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors who have met the conditions as referred to in article 48 paragraph (2) letter a, letter b, letter c, letter f and preceded by verification by supervisors one level above it based on complaints of election organizers, participants of the election, the campaign team, community, and/or the selector is equipped with a clear identity. (3) in the process of dismissal referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2), Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors should be given the opportunity to defend himself before DKPP. (4) in the case of meetings plenary DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2), the Member in question was dismissed while as a Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors up to the publication of the decision of dismissal. (5) a decision of dismissal as referred to in paragraph (4) to Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors conducted by Bawaslu. 6. That the members of Panwaslu Kada Jakarta was commissioned and is entitled to the money the honor since the 1 (one) month before the stage of Elections Head region and Deputy Head of the region begins and ends two months after the election of the head of the Regional stages and Deputy Head of the selected Area is inaugurated. 7. That the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor of Jakarta was elected was implemented on October 15, 2012, so members of Panwaslu Kada DKI Jakarta will stop on December 15, 2012.

61 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 8. That based on the verdict of DKPP number 15/DKPP-OKAY-I/2012 dated October 31, 2012, Bawaslu Plenary Meeting held on November 2, 2012 who decided to immediately follow through on the ruling Council of DKPP on Wednesday October 31, 2012 by publishing a Decree Chairman Bawaslu Rl about sanctions in the form of dismissal of the Remains to the Chairman of Panwaslu Jakarta on behalf of Ramdansyah. 9. That Bawaslu Ramdansyah Brothers dismiss as a member of Panwaslu Kada DKI Jakarta with the decision letter of the Election Watchdog Agency Number 712-KEP in 2012, dated November 16, 2012, about the dismissal of members of the Supervisory Committee for the election of the province of Jakarta in order the elections of Governor and Vice Governor of the province of Jakarta. 10. Therefore, Bawaslu Member Supervisory Committee is authorized to dismiss the elections in question violate the code of conduct of election Organisers. Based on the above description it can be concluded that the decision of the Election Supervisory Body (DECREE No. 712-KEP in 2012) regarding the dismissal of members of the Supervisory Committee for the election of the province of Jakarta in order the elections of Governor and Vice Governor of the province of Jakarta on behalf of Ramdansyah, dated November 16, 2012 issued by the Defendant, in the procedure of formal and material//substantial was legal and did not contain the flaw has been issued in accordance with the provisions of legislation in force and does not conflict with General principles of Government. [1.7] considering that to shorten the blurb in this ruling, everything that happened in the trial was appointed in the news events of the trial, and it is a unity that can not be separated by this ruling;

62 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 3. LEGAL CONSIDERATION [3.1] considering that the goal and purpose of the petition of the applicant is invoking testing the constitutionality of article 28 paragraph (3) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1)", article 28 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict as referred to in subsection (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP", article 100 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)" , Article 101 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by the rules", article 112 DKPP paragraph (9) along with the phrase "DKPP Award", article 112 paragraph (10) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP", article 112 paragraph (12), article 112 paragraph (13) along with the phrase "mandatory executeth DKPP", and section 113 subsection (2) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict" law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011 Additional Sheets, the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246, hereinafter referred to as ACT 15/2012) each of which States:  Article 28 paragraph (3) "in terms of plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1), the Member in question was dismissed as a member of the Election Commission, the provisional ELECTION COMMISSION of the province, or district/city ELECTION COMMISSION up to publication of the decision of dismissal";  Article 28 paragraph (4) "Ordinance a complaint referred to in subsection (1), the defence referred to in subsection (2), and the taking of the verdict as referred to in subsection (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP";  Article 100 paragraph (4) "in terms of plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2), the Member in question was dismissed while Bawaslu Member, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and Foreign Election Supervisors up to the publication of the decision of dismissal";  Article 101 paragraph (1) "procedures for complaints, pleadings, and the taking of the verdict by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by Regulation DKPP";


63 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id  Article 112 paragraph (9) "DKPP award after conducting research and/or verification against the complaint, to listen to defense witnesses and information, as well as paying attention to the evidence";  Article 112 paragraph (10) "Verdict DKPP be penalized or taken in a plenary meeting of the rehabilitation of DKPP";  Article 112 paragraph (12) of "the ruling referred to in paragraph (10) is final and binding";  Article 112 paragraph (13), "Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION FROM the province, Kabupaten/Kota, PPS, PPK, PPLN, KPPS, KPPSLN, Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu, PPL and the obligatory PPLN executeth DKPP";  Section 113 subsection (2) "taking of the verdict against the examination referred to in subsection (1) done in Plenary meeting of DKPP"; The articles that are contrary to article 1 paragraph (3), article 22E subsection (1), article 22E subsection (5), and section 28D subsection (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution of each State:  article 1 paragraph (3) "State of Indonesia is a country of laws";  Article 22E subsection (1) "the general election held in direct, General, free, confidential, honest, and fair every five years";  Article 22E paragraph (5) "elections organised by an Electoral Commission that is national, fixed, and independent";  Article 28D paragraph (1) "everyone has the right to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law". [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; Against both those things, the Court considers the following: 64 COPIES of RULING THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id the authority of the Court [3.3] considering that under article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution, article 10 paragraph (1) letter a Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as modified by law No. 8 year 2011 about the changes to the Act No. 24 of 2003 about the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Sheet (year 2011 Number 70 Additional Sheets, the Republic of Indonesia Number 5226, hereinafter referred to as the ACT of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT), as well as to article 29 paragraph (1) letter a Act No. 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, hereinafter the ACT 48/2009), one of the powers of the Constitutional Court is to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final to examine legislation against the Constitution; [3.4] considering that the applicant's plea is testing the constitutionality chapters in law 15/2011 against the Constitution then the Court is authorized 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; d. State institutions; Thus, the applicant in testing legislation against the Constitution should explain and prove in advance: 65 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id a. position as 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 May 31, 2005 and the ruling of the Constitutional Court number 11/PUU-V/2007 dated 20 September 2007, as well as subsequent rulings held that the loss of rights and/or constitutional authority as stipulated in 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 paragraph [2.2] above, then the Court will consider the legal position concerning (legal standing) of the applicant in the application for a quo which postulates the following things: [3.7.1] that the applicant is an individual citizen of Indonesia based on the Card Number 3172033012680009 Residents who previously worked as Chairman and member of the Supervisory Committee (Panwaslu) Elections at the general election of regional Heads (Pemilukada) DKI Jakarta area of law handling and handling of violations;

66 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id [3.7.2] that the applicant has argued that constitutional authority given Constitution. According to the applicant, the konstitusionalnya rights have been harmed by the introduction of clauses petitioned testing konstitusionalitasnya as already outlined above, with reasons on anyway: 1. Applicant lost his constitutional rights to be the organizer of the election due to the decision of a Board of Honour Election Organizers (DKPP) who dismiss the applicant permanently from membership of Panwaslu Jakarta that has followed up with the dismissal of a member and the Chairman of Panwaslu DKI by Bawaslu , whereas before the applicant's performance appraisals get positive and awards from many quarters; 2. The applicant's difficulty in terms of becoming teachers because it is always associated with the ruling of DKPP; 3. The ruling of DKPP cause disruption of the election Organizers good performance of Supervisory of elections (Bawaslu) along with the range nor the Electoral Commission (ELECTION COMMISSION) with the range which in the end can harm or at least hinder the holding of the elections as well as the legal uncertainty raises against the tasks and authority of the ELECTION COMMISSION, along with a Bawaslu Minelayer; [3.8] Considering that by basing on article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT the COURT and associated with previous rulings, and postulates a constitutional disadvantage experienced by the applicant as expressed above, according to the Court, there is a constitutional authority and rights Permohon that harmed by the enactment of law 15/2011 who petitioned the testing and there is a causal relationship (causal verband) between the losses is the enactment of the legislation norms petitioned testing so, according to the Court, the applicant has the legal position (legal standing) to apply for a quo; [3.9] considering that because of the Court is authorized to adjudicate a petition for quo and the applicant has the legal position (legal standing)


67 COPIES of RULING THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id to apply for a quo, the Court will consider the subject matter of the petition; The subject matter of the petition [3.10] considering that the principal applicant's application is testing the constitutionality of norms of LAW 15/2011 as already described above, on the grounds that substantially that the verdict of the DKPP be final and binding legal uncertainty raises due to negate the authority and supervision of the construction, owned by the ELECTION COMMISSION and Bawaslu; [3.11] considering that to prove the evidence if possible, the applicant submits evidence that writing letters/marked evidence of P-1 to P-14 evidence; expert named Dr. Suparji, S.H., M.H. who had heard his statement during the trial and the witnesses named Denny Alexander and Megan Mahmud Gayo, which more information is contained in the section Sat the matter; [3.12] considering that the President delivered an oral description of the Council dated May 7, 2013 and filing affidavits are received at the Registrar of the Court on June 26, 2013, which in anyway explains that the provisions of article 28 paragraph (3) and subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10), and subsection (13), as well as Section 113 subsection (2) of the ACT 15/2011 does not conflict with the Constitution , more information is contained in the section Sat the matter; [3.13] considering that the House of representatives (DPR) delivered the oral and written information in the trial may 29, 2013, which in anyway explains that the provisions of article 28 paragraph (3) and subsection (4), article 100 paragraph (4), article 101 paragraph (1), article 112 paragraph (9), subsection (10), subsection (12), and subsection (13), as well as Section 113 subsection (2) of the ACT 15/2011 does not conflict with the Constitution , more information is contained in the section Sat the matter; [3.14] considering that DKPP delivered a letter Number 501/DKPP/IV/2013 subject plenary session about the test of the LAW number 15 Year 68 COPIES of RULING THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 2011, dated 25 April 2013, which substantially DKPP will respect and implement anything decided upon related legislation, either by the creation of the law or by the Constitutional Court therefore DKPP entrusted entirely to the court examining the case and hang up. Description of DKPP more contained in section Sat the matter; [3.15] considering that Bawaslu deliver oral and written information in the trial date of May 7, 2013, which anyway declared the dismissal made by the applicant in order to Bawaslu run Verdict DKPP which are final and binding. Bawaslu description more contained in section Sat the matter; The opinion of the Court [3.16] considering that based on the postulates of the petition of the applicant, the evidence of a letter/writings submitted expert witness, a description of the applicant, his/her description of the President of the PARLIAMENT, captions, caption, and description DKPP Bawaslu, as well as the facts came to light in the trial, according to the Court, the principal constitutional issues appealed by the applicant is whether the verdict regarding the dismissal of DKPP member Election Commission, members of the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, members of the Kabupaten/Kota, a member of the PPK , a member of the PPS, Member of goalie PPLN KPPS, Bawaslu Member, KPPSLN Member, Member, Member of the Provincial Bawaslu Panwaslu Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu members, members of the Court, and the Election of members of a Foreign Election Supervisors are final and binding contrary to the Constitution? [3.17] considering that before considering more about the constitutional issues, the principal Court needs to first consider the following matters: a. Article 22E subsection (5) of the Constitution states, "the general election is held by an Electoral Commission that is national, fixed, and independent"; b. Concerning the interpretation of the phrase "against an Electoral Commission" listed in article 22E subsection (5) of the Constitution, the Court in its VERDICT of THIS COPY of the 69 CONSTITUTIONAL RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id the legal consideration of paragraphs [3.18] Court ruling number 11/PUU-VIII/2010, dated March 18, 2010, among other things, stated: "... To ensure that this general election and overflowing jurdil, article 22E subsection (5) of the Constitution specifies that, "in the general election was held by an Electoral Commission that is national, fixed and independent". The phrase "an Electoral Commission" in the Constitution does not refer to a institutions name, but refers to the function of conducting elections that are national, fixed and independent. Thus, according to the Court, the function of organizing elections have not only carried out by the Commission of Elections (ELECTION COMMISSION), but also included the institution of elections supervisors in this General Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) as one function of organizing national elections which are, anyway, and independent. This sense more comply with the Constitution which requires the presence of organizers of the elections which is independent to the implementation of the general election that meets the principles of overflowing and jurdil. Organizing elections without oversight by independent agencies, would threaten the principles of overflowing and jurdil in the implementation of the elections. Therefore, according to the Court, the Electoral Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) as set forth in chapter IV article 70 up to Article 109 of ACT 1/2007, should be interpreted as the electoral institutions in charge of controlling the implementation of the general election, so that the function of organizing the election conducted by the organisers, in this Electoral (ELECTION COMMISSION), and supervisor of the election, in this case the Electoral Supervisory Body (Bawaslu). In fact, the honor Council which supervises the conduct of election organisers have to be defined as an institution which is an aggregation function of organizing elections. Thus, the guarantee of the independence of the election organisers being real and obvious... ". Based on these considerations, it is clear that DKPP is an organ that is part of one unit and the function of organizing Elections is Article 22E subsection (5) of the Constitution, namely that oversaw the election organisers behavior; [3.18] considering that Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Constitution states, "the powers 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 24A subsection 70 (5) a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id Constitution states, "the order, position, membership, and the law of the Supreme Court and the judiciary under it are governed by law". The sense of the phrase "subject to the law" in article 24A of paragraph (5) of the Constitution means that the establishment of a judicial body under the Supreme Court has to do with the legislation. Article 27 of ACT 48/2009 States: (1) the Special Court can only be formed in one of the neighborhoods of the judiciary under the Supreme Court referred to in Article 25. (2) the provisions concerning the establishment of a Special Court as intended in paragraph (1) is set out in the Act. Explanation of article 27 paragraph (1) of ACT 48/2009 stating, "what is meant by ' special courts ' among others is the juvenile court, the Court of Commerce, the Court of human rights, the Court of the crime of corruption, industrial relations court and the Court of fisheries that are on public trial environment, as well as the Tax Court who are in State administrative judicial environment". Based on the provisions of the above then the organizers of the judiciary in Indonesia is composed of the Supreme Court (MA) and the judicial bodies are underneath the judicial environment in General, environmental justice neighborhood religious courts, military, judicial and administrative environment of the State, and the Constitutional Court (MK). DKPP not included in special courts that fall into one of the neighborhoods of the judiciary under the MA as intended by article 24 paragraph (2) of the Constitution and article 27 paragraph (1) of ACT 48/2009 and are not included as one of the perpetrators of the power of Justice referred to Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Constitution. It has been confirmed in one of the considerations in the Court ruling on the disputed election result disputes (PHPU), namely in paragraph [3.18.1] Verdict Number 115/PHPU. D-XII/2013, the date of October 1, 2013 (Pemilukada Kota Tangerang) which States, "the organs of DKPP is a State which is not a judicial institution as referred to in article 24 Constitution which has the independent authority to enforce the law and justice";


THIS COPY of the VERDICT of the 71 CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id [3.19] considering that Article 1 point 10 of ACT 15/2011 stated, "Honorary Council Election Organizers, further abbreviated DKPP, is an institution tasked to handle violations of the code of conduct of election Organisers and is an aggregation function of organizing the elections". Next Article 109 paragraph (2) of the ACT 15/2011 stated, "DKPP formed to examine and decide complaints and/or reports of alleged violations of the code of ethics committed by members of the Election Commission, members of the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, members of the ELECTION COMMISSION district/city, members of the members of the PPS, PPK, Member of goalie PPLN KPPS, Member of KPPSLN, a member of goalie Bawaslu Bawaslu Member Panwaslu province and Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan Panwaslu members, members of the Election field and members of Foreign Election Supervisors". Based on these provisions, according to the Court, the case shall be handled DKPP objects limited only to behavior (ethics) personal or individual person acting or Officer Election organizers. The existence of an ethical institution as DKPP breaches the code of conduct of election organisers needed done in an attempt to control the Election in this direct, secret, public, free, honest, and fair. Then the related authority to dismiss Election organizers have been regulated in the provisions of article 27 paragraph (4) of the ACT 15/2011 for the members of the Election Commission, the ELECTION COMMISSION and the ELECTION COMMISSION of the province, Kabupaten/Kota, article 41 paragraph (2) of the ACT 15/2011 for members of the PPK, article 44 paragraph (2) of the ACT 15/2011 for the members of the PPS, article 48 paragraph (3) of the ACT 15/2011 for members of PPLN, article 46 paragraph (2) of the ACT 15/2011 for KPPS members Article 50, paragraph (2) of the ACT 15/2011 for members of KPPSLN, as well as Article 99 clause (3) of the ACT 15/2011 for members Bawaslu, Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election field, and supervisor of elections abroad. Based on the articles mentioned above, administratively, the competent authority to appoint and dismiss the President if the election organiser is associated with members of the ELECTION COMMISSION and a member of Bawaslu; ELECTION COMMISSION if associated with members of the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, members of the PPLN, and members of KPPSLN; The provincial ELECTION COMMISSION if associated with members of the ELECTION COMMISSION district/city; The district/city if associated with a member, the members of the PPS, PPK and Member KPPS; Bawaslu if associated with Member Bawaslu Panwaslu provincial, Kabupaten/Kota, Kecamatan, Panwaslu Election pitch, 72 a COPY of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id and supervisor of elections abroad. DKPP alone has the authority to decide on dismissal of the organizers of the election only if DKPP has conducted research and/or verification against the complaint, to listen to defense witnesses and information, as well as paying attention to the evidence of the existence of the allegations raised about violations committed by the organizer of the election that is all related code of conduct violation by the organizers of the elections [vide Article 111 of the ACT 15/2011]. According to the Court, have the authority to give DKPP verdict upon the presence or absence of a code of conduct violations done by the organizer of the election along with the sanctions can be meted out to the organizers of the election without can be affected by any institution, including the President, the Election Commission, as well as Bawaslu. It is a manifestation of the independence and self-sufficiency of DKPP as one of the institutions that carry out the functions of organizing elections. That law 15/2011 provide authorizes DKPP to decide on sanctions to the organizers of the election if it is in the process of examination by DKPP as set forth in the law, the organizer of the election in question was indeed proven to have violated the code of conduct of election organisers. Such sanctions may include a written reprimand, suspension, or dismissal. According to the Court, the sanctions decided by the violations of sanctions is DKPP code of ethics committed by officials or individual Election organizers. The award shall be final and binding DKPP for President, Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION FROM the province, Kabupaten/Kota, nor Bawaslu. Follow-up decision DKPP conducted by the President, the Election Commission, the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, ELECTION COMMISSION Kabupaten/Kota, Bawaslu official decision is both the State (TUN) that carry out the Affairs of Government based on laws and regulations that are individual, concrete, and final. Therefore only the decision of the Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION President, Province, district/city ELECTION COMMISSION, as well as those that can be a Bawaslu object in judicial lawsuit TUN; [was 3.20] considering that on the basis of the above considerations, that the verdict of DKPP which are final and binding as referred to in article 112 paragraph (12) of the ACT 15/2011 can give rise to legal uncertainty are final and binding are referred to in the Act is the CONSTITUTION of THIS VERDICT COPY 73 RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id the same as the final verdict of the judiciary and tie it. In order to avoid legal uncertainty over the existence of that provision, the Court needs to affirm that ruling final and binding DKPP cannot be equated with a final and binding ruling of the judiciary in General therefore DKPP internal device is the organizer of the election which was authorized by the Act. Final and binding nature of the verdict meant DKPP shall be final and binding for the President, the Election Commission, the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, ELECTION COMMISSION district/city, or in carrying out the verdict Bawaslu DKPP. As for the decision of the Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION President, Province, district/city ELECTION COMMISSION, as well as the officials decision Bawaslu TUN which is concrete, individual, and a final that could be the object of judicial suit in the TUN. Whether the judiciary TUN will review and reassess the DKPP verdict decision of the Election Commission, ELECTION COMMISSION President, province and district/city ELECTION COMMISSION, as well as Bawaslu, it is the judicial authority TUN. Thus the verdict is final and binding on the definition in the law meant a quo must be final and binding for the President, the Election Commission, the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, ELECTION COMMISSION district/city, nor a Bawaslu executeth DKPP; [3.22] considering that, because of the applicant's plea concerning the core ruling of DKPP which are final and binding have been given specific meanings by the Courts so as not to eliminate the phrase final and binding as a whole. Thus the applicant's petition against the rest, i.e. about Article 28 paragraph (3) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1)", article 28 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict as referred to in subsection (3) by DKPP arranged further by Regulation DKPP", article 100 paragraph (4) along with the phrase "in terms of the plenary meeting of DKPP decided the dismissal of a Member referred to in subsection (1) and paragraph (2)" , Article 101 paragraph (1) along with the phrase "taking of the verdict by DKPP as stipulated in article 100 is governed more by the rules", article 112 DKPP paragraph (9) along with the phrase "DKPP Award", article 112 paragraph (10) along with the phrase "the verdict DKPP", article 112 paragraph (13) along with the phrase "mandatory executeth DKPP", and section 113 subsection (2) all COPIES OF THIS VERDICT 74 phrases CONSTITUTION RI Downloaded from your pages www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id: "taking of the verdict" law 15/2011 not relevant anymore to be considered so that unwarranted under the law; [3.22] considering that based on the entire consideration of the above, the applicant's well-founded evidence according to law for the most part. 4. CONCLUSION based on the above assessment of the facts and the law as outlined above, the Court concluded that: [4.1] the Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition for quo; [2.6] the applicant has legal position (legal standing) to apply for a quo; [4.3] the evidence the appellant reasoned according to law for the most part; [2.7] the evidence of the applicant and the rest in addition to unwarranted under the law. Based on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional 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), 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 applicant's Application for the most part, namely:


75 COPIES of the VERDICT of THIS CONSTITUTION RI downloaded from page: www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id 1.1. The phrase "is final and binding" in article 112 paragraph (12) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 all meant, "no Ruling as referred to in paragraph (10) is final and binding for the President, the Election Commission, the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION , The Kabupaten/Kota, and Bawaslu "; 1.2. The phrase "is final and binding" in article 112 paragraph (12) of law number 15 year 2011 about Election Organizers (Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 101 in 2011, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5246) do not have the force of law binds all meant, "no Ruling as referred to in paragraph (10) is final and binding for the President, the Election Commission, the Provincial ELECTION COMMISSION, ELECTION COMMISSION district/city Bawaslu, and "; 2. Order the loading of this ruling in the news of the Republic of Indonesia as it should be; 3. Refuse the application for the applicant to other than and the rest; The case was decided in the meeting of the Consultative Constitutional Judge by nine Judges, namely m. N Deputy Mochtar, speaker and interim Member, Achmad Sodiki, Hamdan Zoelva, Arief Hidayat, Ahmad Fadlil, Maria Farida Indrati Sumadi, Harjono, Muhammad Alim, and Usman Anwar, each as a member, on Monday, the date of the twenty-two, in July, the year two thousand thirteen, and is spoken in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court is open to the public on Thursdays on three, last April, of the year two thousand fourteen, finished at 14 pm, spoken by the nine Judges of the Constitution, namely, Hamdan Zoelva as Chairman and Member, Arief Hidayat, Ahmad Fadlil, Maria Farida Indrati Sumadi, Muhammad Alim, Usman Anwar, Patrialis Akbar, Aswanto Wahiduddin, and Adams, respectively as a member, accompanied by Rizki Amalia as the Registrar of a COPY of the CONSTITUTION of THIS RULING 76 RI Downloaded from your pages : www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id replacement, as well as attended by the applicant, the Government or representing, and the House of representatives or representing. Chairman, ttd Hamdan Zoelva members, ttd Arief Hidayat ttd Ahmad Fadlil Maria Farida Indrati ttd Sumadi ttd Muhammad Alim ttd Usman Anwar ttd Patrialis Akbar ttd Aswanto ttd Wahiduddin Adams CLERK of the surrogate, ttd Rizki Amalia