Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

Yang inspees, prosecute, and severing constitutional cases in the first and last levels has dropped a ruling in the case

Indonesian Republic of Indonesia Law Testing plea No. 31 Year

2002 about the Political Party against the Basic Law of the State Republic

Indonesia Tahun 1945, submitted by:

1. Name: S.M. HASUGIAN, S.H.

Work: General Chairman of the Reform Party Central Leadership Board

Indonesia (PRI);

Address: Jalan Raya Puri Kembangan Number 77 Kedoya 11520

West Jakarta;

Phone: (021) 5818826/ 08174800285, 08153040642

2. Name: Drs. H.A. RUSLI

Work: Secretary General of the Indonesian Reform Party;

Address: Jati Jalan Uwung Cibodas Rt. 02 Rw. 03 Tangerang;

As the General Chairman and General Secretary acting for and on behalf of

The Indonesian Reform Party, subsequently referred to as a ... PEMOHON;

Has read the applicant's request;

Has heard the applicant's caption;

Has checked the applicant's evidence;

Has heard the witness's description;

SAT MATTERS

Draw that The applicant has submitted a request with

his request letter is dated 07 Pebruari 2004 received in

Paniteraan of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, on Friday,

date 13 Pebruari 2004 and was reorganized with Number 003 /PUU-II/2004,

as well as the repair of the applicant ' s request dated 9 March 2004 accepted

in the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court on Tuesday 23 March

2004 essentially the applicant applied for a Test of Invite-

invite the State of the Republic of Indonesia No. 31 Year 2002 with dalil-dalil

as follows:

1. That as it is operational from the legal entity there are two namely

the exercise of the right and execution of the obligations, against the execution

the applicant ' s obligation to be a general election participant has

apply to the The Department of Justice and Human Rights RI

on August 15, 2003 and on September 29, 2003, and on

on September 16, 2004 a request was submitted to the KPU,

but that request was not accepted;

2. That against the plea of the Department of Justice and Human Rights

RI did not recommend to the Electoral Commission to be

one of the political parties of the 2004 general election party with the rationale

Reform Party Indonesia has not been verified to the lower ranks

for all Indonesia because of the time-time border;

3. That due to the actions of the Department of Justice and the Election Commission

The General, it is constitutionally detrimentally to the applicant, as it is not

2

was named as the political party of the 2004 general election,

so that it could not be a role as well as repair from within, and the loss

moril due to the party's laws contrary to the Invite-

Invite to the State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 amendment 1,

2, 3 and 4;

4. That there is no uniformity of the Constitution of the State

Republic of Indonesia in 1945, published by the Constitutional Court

Republic of Indonesia with existing market as well as amendment

has not been entered in State News of the Republic of Indonesia;

5. That Act No. 2 of 1999 has not all political parties

enjoy and still have a promise from the government to enjoy the invite-

invite that in the 2004 general election, at least 12 parties

politics Qualify for 1999, while the 12 political parties

did not participate in the non-enactment of Law No. 2

In 1999;

6. That the Constitution Commission is still ongoing in the DPR-RI

which allows to fine-tune the results of the amendment 1 to 4

The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, which

still differs from that. so that the Constitution of the Nation

The Republic of Indonesia in 2004 has not been a single entity and yet

has been socialized for all Indonesian people to be known for rights and

obligations of Indonesian citizens over changes The bill was;

7. That the political party was born in 2002 about

The Political Party is in the interests of individuals, groups, or

freedom of union (private) and does not take a contideration of

The opening of the Basic Law Country of the Republic of Indonesia Year

1945, where party and party leaders develop a burden on its shoulders

for the purely socialization and consekwen of the Basic Law

The State of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 to the rest of the nation Indonesia.

Thus how to expand the Basic Act material

The Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 is due to not

3

amended phase 5 as well as the birth of Law Number 31 of the Year

2002 about the Political Party is premature and all laws

which are given out of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

The uncompleted 1945 amendment was premature

that ultimately led to the uncertainty of the law. The applicant

argues that the birth of the law became a tool of unity and

the unity of the nation and not vice versa being a tool of the split and

the nation's malleable, then the lahierarchy of the party's laws must be

in line. with the release of Indonesian Independence on 17

August of 1945 as well as the 4th paragraph (four) Opening

The Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945,

" to form a government which protect the entire people and

the whole of Indonesian blood ...... " And so on, then the party that

fills the legislative and political office responsible for the progress

of the Indonesian nation;

8. That, according to Law No. 31 of the Year 2002 about the Party

Politics, Law No. 2 of 1999 has been cancelled, if already

cancelled under any pretext cannot be used anymore, reality

that got the vote 2% or more in the 1999 general election

by using Law No. 2 of 1999 automatic

to be a general election participant in 2004. Thus Invite-

invite Number 2 of 1999 on the Political Party is still alive and

in effect, there is legal dualism in the legal state, it should be wrong

one must be undone in this case which should be cancelled is

Law Number 31 of the Year 2002 about the Political Party;

9. That Act No. 31 of 2002 about the Political Party

the socialization is 9 months (article 29 paragraph 1) since the promulcings of the invite-

invite that was on February 1, 2003. In fact

the legislation in its implementation was not protected but

intervened where August 22, 2003 was completed registration and 27

September 2003 completed verification, with its intervention going

implementation of Act No. 31 of 2002 is certainly contradictory

4

with law and party members as well as party leadership not getting

independence and not getting legal protection;

10. The No. 31 Act of 2002 on the Political Party was

contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

in 1945 that gave freedom and independence;

11. That according to Act No. 31 of the Year 2002 about the Party

Politics, the party is required to address the party administrators

the district is under the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia Year 1945, the party have freedom and independence

to set up its own household, the government asks the administrator

the district level party which means there is a member of the DPRD level

the district, certainly contrary to the Basic Law Country

Republic of Indonesia Year 1945;

12. That according to the Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia Year

1945 the entire Indonesian society must be protected and determined status

its laws, but in the Law No. 31 of 2002 concerning the Party

The Politics of which it has been verifying 84 (eighty) political parties, where

of 84 (eighty) the party's 24 political parties qualify for verification and

being a general election participant in 2004, while 60 (sixty)

the political party is not Verifying. Where is the legal status of the 60 (six

20) of the political party under Law No. 31 of 2002

about the Political Party, is it 60 (sixty) the party being

a floating period or how?, when a period of time period. floating the same

with Golput, meaning the golput is an undang-undrased protected;

13. That supposed legislation governing the leadership of a political party that

did not qualify for the 2004 general election, was obliged to

socialize its members to the political party that escaped following

the general election of the year 2004, which one vision and one mission, if that thing

contained in Law No. 31 of 2002 then

The assignment of the Act was completed, it turned out to be uncontained

then Act No. 31 of 2002 should be cancelled;

5

14. That in the Law Number 31 Year 2002 about the Party

Politics does not regulate the party ' s source and financial expenditure

in the verification phase and campaign stage, thus invite-

invite it not perfect, should set about

the party financial spending in verificas being a liability

the government is spending its campaign finance and another

is the responsibility of the party;

15. That the applicant has attempted to be able to participate in the general election participants

in 2004, by seeking a plea to the Department

Judiciary and Human Rights RI, KPU, DPR RI and MPR-RI, but the reality is not

got the settlement so that must be completed through

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, then:

Since this issue has been up to the judicial desk, before any

decision on the object, the government should delay

the implementation of the follow-up dispute by determining the time

settlement and if not In the case of the Constitutional Court

The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia ceased the follow through to

together and compacing together in one purpose.

The object object is still disputed and reasonably separated from the applicant

and that So it's fair to justice, and there are sanctions.

The laws of implementation are in the way. dispute of the Constitutional Court

Republic of Indonesia ic at the matter.

16. That in Section 22E of the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia in 1945 mentions any further provisions regarding

the general election is governed by the Act, in fact the implementation

is with the Presidential Decree No. 70 2001 June 5, 2001, with

so that in June 2001 had not yet set about the Board

Regional Representative (DPD) and the presidential election directly because of it

KPU is not syah and has no legal basis for implement

the DPD election and the direct presidential election, due to Kepres and the Act

6

not one level so that the No. 70 Kepres of 2001 should

be ruled out of the general election;

17. That the scope of the general election performance is; (1) the (1) body

law and its person, (2) the organizational structure, (3) the equipment, (4) the target,

(5) the results. The number 1 to 3 is not an invitation,

at number 4 being the issue and number 5 is the Act

No. 12 of 2003 about the elections that equates and makes

the contradiction of the Regional Consideration Council (Council) = Organization) of its candidate

individual, where the board of the person is;

18. That the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945

that existed in the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, in contrast to the Act

Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 at the Senen market,

There is no such difference between the two countries. other:

In the Constitutional Court of RI, Article 1 consists of 3 verses, is in the market

Senen 2 paragraph;

In the Constitutional Court of RI, Article 2 consists of 3 verses, is in the market

Senen no verse;

At the Constitutional Court RI, Article 21 no verse, is on the market

Senen is made up of 2 verses;

On the Court Constitution of Indonesia, Article 25 exists, is in the Senen market

no;

So the uniformity of the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia Year 1945 needs to be questioned, and it will be possible

resolved amended to 5;

19. That binding legislation to the entire Indonesian nation

after it was announced in state news, it turns out that the amendments to

1,2,3 and 4 UUD 1945 have not been included in state news, and

The MPR decision was not implemented. by the president but the decision

sways from the back door of MPR RI so it raises

7

the difference in the Constitutional Court and in the Senen market this is due to

not to be the administration and absence of legal certainty;

20. That the history of the Law No. 31 of 2002 on

The Political Party is not yet clear/premature, in a hurry without

matured consideration by repeating Law No. 2

The 1999 year on the Political Party, after being cancelled 6 (six) parties

politics that got a vote of 2% or more under the Invite-

Invite Number 2 of 1999 automatically contested the general election of the year

2004, meaning Law No. 2 of 1999 is still alive, and

also consideres that do not take from the Opening of the 1945 Constitution,

as well as the materials no Housing the reality and the will that

thrive in society, the socialization that does not exist or not

as it is, the government intervention that should be protected

or so on, by the cause of the Act. cannot

be maintained again, then it must be cancelled;

21. That based on the description of the applicant argued

should the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia see

the issue is globally and specifically that it has been inked

The Republican Basic Law Indonesia Year 1945 which

left by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights RI, KPU, DPR-RI,

MPR-RI on the basis of will as well as for the sake of the like-

will the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945

only mere slogans and on paper as well as under the interests

certain by ignoring The fate of the people of Indonesia;

Based on these matters, please please

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia to please accept,

inspect, and prosecute and discontinue as follows:

1. Accepts the request for the applicant to receive the whole;

2. revoke the 2002 31 Year Act on the Party

Politics and enacted Law No. 2 of 1999

about the Political Party;

8

3. ordered to stop the follow-up from Invite-

invite Number 31 of 2002 about the Political Party and any access

follow up from it;

4. order to be socialized for the Country Basic Law

Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 amendments to all

subject of law/person known to the Country Basic Law

Republic of Indonesia of 1945 has been change and are known for the right

and obligations thereof;

5. Declaring the Number 70 in 2001 on June 5, 2001, not

at the level with the undraver;

6. ordered that the Election execution be set up with Invite-

invite;

7. waive or cancel the Kepres Number 70 of 2001

date 5 June 2001 from the general election in 2004;

8. delivered this decision to the entire party/related agencies;

9. put this decision into the State News;

10. set the Indonesian Reform Party (PRI) was the election participant

general in 2004 (after the 1999 general election);

11. provide legal sanction to any party that violates the rights

legal entity or legal subject rights.

That in order to corroborate such requests, the applicant

has submitted the evidence as follows:

1. Announcement of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights RI Number M. UM.06.08-120

date 19 Pebruari 2002, about the Registration of Political Party Unrest.

(P-1);

2. Letter to the Minister of Justice and Human Rights RI Number 300 /20598/) RG/DPP

PRI/I/2003 dated August 15, 2003, about the fulfillment of section 2.3, and 29

Act No. 31 of 2002 and PRI registration to P4 in 2004, (P-

2);

9

3. The temporary receipt of the Political Party Reregistration Request

issued by the Minister of Justice and Human Rights is dated August 25

2003, (P-2.a);

4. The Reform Party of Indonesia, dated 7 March 2003, (P-2 .b);

5. Domicile Certificate Number 32 /1-775.2/03 dated August 22, 2003,

and Copy Photo Card Population. SM.Hasugian, SH. Which

is published by Camat Kebon Jeruk Jakarta West, (P-2.c);

6. The Indonesian Reform Party Basic Budget is dated 20 May 1998, (P-

2.d);

7. List of Core Board of Councillors Leadership of the Centre of Reform Party Centre

Indonesia (DPP-PRI) 2002-2007. dated 28 April 2002,

(P-2.e);

8. Letter of the Decree of the Congress of Indonesia Congress

Number Ist.11/20598/ORG/2002 dated 01 August 2002 , P-2.f);

9. News Event Verification of the Political Party Central Level Team Department

Justice and human rights RI is dated 8 September 2003, (P-3);

10. Letter to the Minister of Justice and Human Rights RI Number

333 /20598/ORG/DPP-PRI/2003 dated September 29, 2003 on

a request was given a member/Replacement of PRI delivered

data along with the closing of the Parpol Registration Election participant

in 2004 at KPU, (P-4);

11. The following year's election participants were to be

participants in the 2004 election dated 16 September 2003, (P-5);

12. Notice issued by the Department of Justice and Human Rights RI

dated 04 August 2003 on reregistration and establishment

Political Parties under Law No. 31 of 2003 on

Political Parties to verification of the third stage (ending) nor equipping

the registration file was closed on August 22, 2003, (P-6);

13. Live Biography on behalf of Soei Makmur Hasugian, S.H., (P-7);

10

14. Basic Budget Change of Political Social Organization No. 67 on behalf of

Indonesia Reform Party, (P-8);

15. Task Letter 052098 /11/DPP-PRI/ORG/2002 dated March 20

2002, (P-9);

16. Congress of the Indonesian Reform Party's implementation of the Congress of Indonesia's Reform Party Number

POL.SI/DIT-B/284/IV/2002 BAINTELKAM dated 19 April 2002, (P-9.a)

17. Receipt of the Face Money, from Wisma P. H. I Cempaka White dated 08

April 2002, (P-9.b);

18. Formatur Konggres I Party of Indonesia Reform Party, (P-10);

19. Receipt of mail submission from DPP PRI Number:

24 /20598/ORG/DPP-PRI/I/2003, (P-11);

20. Letter to the Director of BCA Bank in Jakarta Number 24 /20598/ORG/DPP-

PRI/I/2003, (P-11.a);

21. Letter to the Director of the BRI Bank in Jakarta Number 26 /20598/ORG/DPP-

PRI/I/2003, (P-12);

22. UUD In 1945 In One Script, (P-13);

23. First Change of the Constitution of 1945, (P-13.a)

24. The third change of the UUD of 1945; ( P-13.b);

25. Changes to the Constitution of 1945 published by Your Works Surabaya;

(P-14);

26. Act No, 31 Year 2002 about Political Party and Law Number

12 years 2003 on Election of General Election, (P-15);

27. Kepres Number 70 of 2001 on the Election Commission, (P-16).

28. RI's Law No. 2 of 1999 on the Political Party; (P-17).

That in the presence of a witness trial named Drs. H. Mujadit

Dulwathan, S.H., M.H., MCL. Has provided the following

only as follows:

11

1. That the treatment of the Department of Justice and Human Rights against the Party

The Indonesian Reformation associated with Article 29, is as follows,:

1) On October 4, 2003 the witness was in the announcement room

The Department Office The Judiciary will be announced for verification results

by the Minister of Justice.

2) related to the whereabouts of the witness there, as the witness as President

The Amanat Party of the Indonesian Reform Fighters wants to know why

announcement it is beyond the provisions of Act No. 31 Year

2002;

3) witnesses know The wisdom of the Minister of Justice has exceeded

the rights granted by the constitution or the Law No. 31

2002, for reducing the socialization deadlines and

verification that should be 9 (nine) months only performed 6 (six)

months;

4) 50 (fifty) unregistered political parties prior to Invite-

invite this and the party born under Law No. 2

1999 has made the victim of wisdom Minister

Judiciary, where the enaccation of this Act is already

work beyond the applicable law;

5) in other sections of the law is flawed, given the basis

the law of the birth of the Act is the same as

Law Number 24 of 2003 about the Constitutional Court

where in the context of the considerance of the statute it does not wear

state news, for the passage of an undrau;

2. That witnesses questioned why discretion is beyond the rules that

there, the Minister of Justice said tomorrow Monday is still there

a chance to complicate it, it turns out that Monday was the entire Party

Politics who felt Being harmed has gone to the Justice Department

and it just happens to witness one of the Party leadership has been appointed to

be the power of the seven Islamic parties plus the non-Islamic party, for

suing the rights of the embezzled at a verification check

12

for example, the party's management data, the receipt of the receipt

and the examination results signed by the Minister of Justice

and the Human Rights RI represented by the field and the party represented

by the subsidiary or region, where the verification of the field

before the data is submitted to the Minister of Justice and Human Rights RI is already stripped

its data, thus becoming embezzlement of data parties and Ministers

Judiciary (Yusril Ihza Mahendra) with Dirjen, the Director as

the suspect has been reported to the Police officer, for embezzling data

the party;

3. That the political party objected to the steps of the Minister of Justice and

human rights RI in the run of Law No. 31 of 2002 because

many deviations, especially in the conduct of Verification, cause at

in the legislation not set about it, so is associated with

Article 29, the Minister of Justice and Human Rights RI misinterpreted where

registration by clarification, it is very detrial to the whole party and

many political parties are want the legislation to be revoked;

4. That on October 10, 2003 the witness facing the Election Commission

General together the party gave power to the witness, where

the witness was accepted by the Members of the Election Commission (KPU) Bp Mulyana

by providing an explanation " that of the General Election Commission (KPU)

it will still include this Political Party as an origin election participant there

affirmation of the Minister Kahakiman or the Supreme Court fatwa, for that

please submit a fatwa to the Supreme Court for the basis of the designation

Commission The General Election (KPU), but the fatwa's request until

now there is no response;

That to shorten the description in this ruling, everything

listed in the news of the event of the trial, is considered to be a one

unity inseparable with this ruling;

13

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Draw that the intent and purpose of the applicant's request a quo

is as above;

Draw that before entering the substance or the subject

the case, The Constitutional Court (later called the Court) in advance

used to consider the following:

1. Whether the Court is able to check, prosecute and disconnect

plea a quo;;

2. Whether the applicant has a constitutional right to be harmed by

the enactment of Law No. 31 of 2002 on the Political Party,

so according to Article 51 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 24 of 2003

on the Court Constitution, the applicant has a legal position (legal

standing) in order to apply for testing (judicial review)

Act No. 31 of 2002 against the Basic Law

Republic of Indonesia 1945;

Against both matters in question, the Court argued as

below:

1. CONSTITUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Draw that, Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Basic Law

Republic of Indonesia 1945 Article 10 paragraph (1) Act No. 24

In 2003 on Constitutional Court, stated that The Constitutional Court

The constitution among other authorities is prosecuting at the first and last level

that the verdict is final to test the legislation against

the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year of 1945;

Weigh that based on the provisions-the firmness above,

and according to Article 50 of the Law No. 24 of 2003 which

14

mentions the Act that can be moved to be tested is

legislation promulred after the change of the Basic Law

The Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year 1945, so that by hence the Court

authorized to test the Law No. 31 of 2002 on

Political Parties against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

In 1945;

Draw that the applicant in his request filed

for the Court to decide for:

1. Ordering the dissocialization of the State Basic Law

Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 amendments to the entire subject

law /person known to the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia Year 1945 has been change and will be known also will the right

and its obligations;

2. Declared Principal Number 70 of 2001 on June 5, 2001 was not

at the level with an undraver;

3. Ordering the execution of the general election to be set up with

undang-undang;

4. Waive or cancel Keppres Number 70 Year 2001

date 5 June 2001 from the 2004 general election;

5. Deliver this decision to the entire party/related agencies;

6. Establishing the Indonesian Reform Party (PRI) was the election participant

general in 2004 (after the 1999 general election);

7. provide legal sanction to any party that violates the right

legal entity or subject of law.

Draw that by due to the substance being moorled

not the authority of the Court, then against the plea

that the Court did not consider further;

15

2. (LEGAL STANDING).

Draw that, Section 51 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 24

Year 2003 states, " The applicant is the party that considers the right

and/or its constitutional authority is harmed by the entry of the law-

invite, i.e.:

A. Individual citizens of Indonesia;

b. the unity of the indigenous law society as long as it is alive and appropriate

with the development of the community and the principle of the Unity State

The Republic of Indonesia that is governed in the promulcity;

c. the public or private legal entity; or

d. state agencies;

Draw that in its request the applicant postulate the right

the constitutionality has been harmed because:

1. The considerant of the birth of Law No. 31 of 2002 on Party

Politics is the interests of individuals, groups or freedoms

unions (private) and did not take the cosideran of the Opening

The State Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945;

2. According to Law No. 31 of the Year 2002 about the Political Party,

Law No. 2 of 1999 has been declared null and void, but

in fact the political party gained 2% of the vote or more on

general election of 1999 automatically become the election participants

general in 2004, which according to the applicant raises dualism

the law in particular the electoral law, should

because the Law No. 2 Year 1999 has been cancelled then all

something that is set up also cannot be valid;

3. Article 29 paragraph (1) Act No. 31 of 2002 on Party

Politics, declares " Political Party which under Law Number 2

In 1999 about Political Parties has been passed as a legal entity

16

by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Indonesia is recognized as its existence and

is obliged to conform to the provisions of this Act as always-

slow 9 (nine) months since the enactment of this law ". But

as it turns out by the Minister of Time 9 (embryos) the month is not

executed in full but applied only 6 (six) months,

it is considered detrimentally to the applicant and resulting in the Reform Party

Indonesia did not qualify for verification and did not participate in the participating party

general election of 2004;

4. As a result of the Minister of Justice's actions that do not exercise socialization

as determined, it is very detriant

the political party that will be the election participant in 2004

in particular the party The applicant, which may be known from 84 political parties

has registered in the Department of Justice and Human Rights RI, only 24

political parties that qualify for verification and who are entitled to the election

general in 2004, 60 The political party was declared unqualified for verification.

5. As a result of the deviation by Meteri Justice and Human Rights RI

, the applicant considers highly disadvantaged of its constitutional rights,

so it is already an Act of Law No. 31 of 2002 on

The Political Party must be declared not applicable and reenacted

Law No. 2 of 1999 on Political Parties;

Draw that the Court has checked and

consider the evidence tools submitted by the applicant

marked P-1 up to P-17;

weighed that in addition to the evidence tool That, the court has

considered the witness ' s description under oath, which

specifies in the same point as the applicant

in his request;

Draw that the Petitioner's dalil stated that the right

his constitutionality has been harmed, that of not taking part as a political party

17

as well as the 2004 general election, so as not being able to play

fixing from the inside, which is caused by the Department of Justice and

HAM RI, in doing verification should be 9 (nine) months but

only done 6 (six) months, not in accordance with Section 29 of the paragraph (1)

Act No. 31 of 2002, as well as other adverse things

the applicant party, so that it does not qualify for verification as well as not participating

the election general 2004;

It weighed that after the Court studied, researched

requests and proofs and statements of the applicant and the witness in

trial examination, the Court argued, that while it is correct

The applicant has an interest but the damages are not

constitute a loss due to the Act No. 31 of the Year

2002, but rather the resulting decisions taken by the Department of Justice

and the human rights RI, so that it does not meet the understanding of the loss as

referred to by Article 51 of the paragraph (1) Law No. 24 of 2003. By

for which, the Court argued the applicant did not have a legal standing

to act as the applicant before the Court;

Draw that with such considerations in

above, the application The applicant must be declared inadmissible, (niet

ontvankelijk verklaard);

Given, Article 56 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 24 of the Year

2003 on Constitutional Court;

M E N G A D I L I

Declaring the applicant is not acceptable, (niet

ontvankelijk verklaard);