Key Benefits:
RULING Number 8/PUU-X/2012
FOR JUSTICE BASED ON THE DIVINITY OF THE ALMIGHTY
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
[1.1] That prosecuting constitutional matters at first level and Last,
dropped the verdict in the Act Testing case
No. 15 Year 2011 on Organizing the General Election against
The State Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, filed
by:
[1.2] 1. Name: Prof. Dr. Yuliandri, S.H., M.H.
Work: Faculty Of Law Faculty Of andalas
UniversityAddress: Physics IV IV Number 1, University Complex
andalas, Ulu Gadut, Padang
As ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Zainal Arifin Mukhtar, S.H., LL.MWork: Lecturer of Law Faculty of University Gadjah Mada
Address: Komplek Housing Dayu Permai Number 9,
Yogyakarta
As -------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant II;
3. Name: Charles Simabura, S.H., M.H.
Work: Lecturer and Researcher of the Center for Constitutional Studies
(Pusako) Faculty of Law of Andalas University
Address: School of Sweet Limau Campus, Faculty of Law
Andalas University, Padang, West Sumatra
As ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
4. Name: Society For Elections and Democracy
(Disdem)
Address: Dana Graha Building I/108 Street
Gondangdia Kecil Number 12-14 Menteng, Jakarta
Center
As ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special powers each dated
8 January 2012 and 13 January 2012 gave power to Feri Amsari, S.H.
M.H., Khairul Fahmi, S.H., M.H., Veri Junaidi, S.H., and Donal Fariz, S.H. which
voted Legal domicile at the Limau Manih Campus, Faculty of University Law
Andalas, Padang, West Sumatra, both individually and alone or together
acting for and on behalf of the power giver;
Next is referred to as -------------------------------------------------------------- The applicant;
[1.3] Reading The applicant's request;
Hearing the applicant's description;
Hearing the Government;
Reading and hearing the statement of the People's Representative Council;
Hearing the Election Commission;
Checking evidence of the applicant;
2. SITTING MATTERS
[2.1] In a draw that the petitioners apply this undated application
January 9, 2012 which is accepted in the Supreme Court of the Constitutional Court (next
called the Court of Justice) on Monday the 9th January 2012
based on the Certificate of Accepting File Request Number 17 /PAN.MK/ 2012 which
then noted in the Book of the Constitutional Case on Thursday 12
January 2012 with the Number 8/PUU-X/2012, which has been corrected and received in
The Court of Justice on 20 February 2012 and 28 February 2012
who on his cigarette outlining things as follows:
3
A. INTRODUCTION
That changes and or changes to the Organizing Act
Elections by the House and Government have led to a possible uncertainty
law in the election process of the members of the General Election Commission (KPU) which would
adversely affect the independence and professionalism of the KPU as
election organizers and cause of conflict with the Constitution
1945 especially regarding Article 13 of the paragraph (5); Section 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and
paragraph (7), Article 87 of the paragraph (5), Article 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7)
Act No. 15 of 2011 on Organizing Elections
(subsequently called the Election Organizing Act);
That in consideran weighed the letter of the Election Organizing b
stated that to improve the quality hosting elections
may guarantee the exercise of public political rights required organizer
professional elections as well as having integrity, capability and accountability;
The applicant looks at The provisions of the above are not executed
consistent in the Act Election organizers. Appears to be a conflict between the background
back of the Election Organizing Act as
set forth in terms of weighing with the provisions in the body bar
change. The basis of the needs of the election organizers who
professionals as well as having integrity, capacity and accountability instead
is narrated by a political process with no legal certainty and process
recruitment which does not guarantee the selection of people who enter the criteria
professional, integrity, capacity and accountable;
That the applicant assessees, in the Election Organizing Act, the DPR and
The government is not only basing it on reflection Election 2009 but also has
slipped the maker ' s interests The Act by opening the space
the election of those who are based solely on political considerations, not
on the basis of professionalism, integrity and capacity. That at once put up
a time bomb that could one day explode and destroy self-reliance
elections. It is seen in several provisions that
open a very dominant political intervention space in the election of the members
The Electoral Commission (KPU). The intervention would have implications for
the election of a member of the KPU based on the will of the existing "political market"
in the House, not on the basis of the capacity and professionalism of a candidate;
4
B. CONSTITUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
1. That in a democratic country, which is based on the law,
as defined in Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which reads:
"The State of Indonesia is the state of law", the judicial independence and
the independence of the judge is an essential element of a legal country or
rechtstaat (rule of law). Because of the importance of this principle, the conception
the separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial powers,
as well as the judicial independence conception, has been viewed as a conception
that is fundamental, thus. is considered to be one of the main elements of
the constitution, and is the soul of the constitution itself;
2. That Section 24 paragraph (2) of the Third Amendment of the Constitution of 1945 states:
"The judicial power is carried out by a Supreme Court and the body
the judiciary is under it in the general judicial environment,
the environment Religious courts, the military judicial environment, the environment
the judiciary of the country's enterprise, and by a Constitutional Court ";
3. That further Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Third Amendment of the Constitution of 1945
states: "The Constitutional Court is authorized to judge at the rate
first and last the ver ct Number 15 Year
2011 about the Primary Election Organizer which is reported in the section
22E paragraph (5) and Section 28D paragraph (1) UUD 1945;
PRIVATE LEGAL BODY APPLICANT
28. That the applicant IV is the applicant who is a Privat Legal Body
that has legal standing and uses his right to submit
this request by using the organization standing (legal procedure
standing);
29. That the applicant from Number I to s.d VII has a legal position (legal
standing) as an Act Testing applicant due to the
attributing cause (causal verband) the enactment of Law No. 15 Year
2011 thus causing the constitutional rights of the applicants to be harmed;
30. That the doctrine organization standing or legal standing is an
event procedure not only known in doctrine but also
has been embraced in various perinvitation regulations in Indonesia such as
Law No. 23 of 1997 on Environmental Management
Life, Act No. 8 of 1999 on Protection
Consumer, Act No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry;
11
31. That in the judicial practice in Indonesia, legal standing has been accepted and
is recognized as a mechanism in the search for justice, which can
is evidenced among others:
a. In the Decree of the Constitutional Court Number 060 /PUU-II/2004 on
Testing Act No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources against
Constitution of 1945;
b. In the Decree of the Constitutional Court Number 003 /PUU-III/2005 on
Testing Law No. 19 of 2004 on Redemption Regulations
Government Replacement of Law Number 1 Year 2004 on Top Change
Act Number 41 of 1999 on Forestry became the Act
against the 1945 Constitution;
c. In the ruling Constitutional Court Number 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003
about the 2002 20 Year Act Testing on Tranquility
against UUD 1945;
32. That the organization may act on public/public interest is
organizations that meet the requirements defined in the various
laws and jurisprudence, namely:
a. foundation;
b. In the base budget the concerned organization mentions with
firmly regarding the purpose of the establishment of that organization;
c. It has carried out activities according to its basic budget.
33. That the applicant IV is a Non-Government Organization or the Institution
Swadaya Community (NGO) that is growing and evolving swadaya,
at its own will and desire in the center of the society founded upon
the basis of concern to be able to escort a general election process that
executed honestly and justly in order for a healthy democracy in
Indonesia;
34. That the task and role of the applicant IV in carrying out activities-
submission activities in general and democracy in Indonesia have
continually deepened as a means for
to fight for the election. an honest and fair general;
35. That the task and role of the applicant in carrying out activities
is being implemented in the general election and democracy, in which case it is crazable
its weakness as a means to include as many as possible
12
members of the public in the fight for the election
direct, public, free, secret, honest and fair share of
anyone. This is reflected in the Basic Budget and/or the founding deed
The applicant; (proof P-3) 36. That the basis and legal interest of the applicant IV in submitting
A 2011 15 Year Act Testing Request may be proven with
The Basic Budget and/or the Instituting Household Budget in which
The applicant is working. In the Basic Budget and/or Household Budget
mentions firmly regarding the purpose of the establishment of the organization, and
has executed the activities in accordance with its Budget;
37. That in achieving the intent and purpose of the applicant IV has done
various endeavour/activities carried out continuously, hal
where it has become common knowledge (notoire feiten);
38. That other than that, the applicant IV has a constitutional right to
fight for its rights jointly for the benefit of the nation and
the country. According to Article 28C of the paragraph (2) of the Basic Law of 1945
stated: "Everyone has the right to advance itself in
for the collective right to build a society,
the nation and its country."
39. Further, the submission of Law Testing No. 15 Year 2011
represents the care and effort of the applicant IV for submission
democracy through the general election that meets direct, common,
free, secret, honest and fair. in Indonesia;
40. That thus, the existence of Section 15 (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6) and paragraph
(7) of the Act No. 15 of the 2011 Election Organizer could potentially
violate the constitutional right of the applicant IV by direct or not
directly, adverse to various efforts that have been performed
continuously in order to perform tasks and roles for
the general election and democracy submission in Indonesia that has been
conducted by the applicant IV;
41. That based on the above description, it is clear that the Private Legal Entity
has a legal standing (legal standing) as the Test applicant
Act Number 15 of the Year 2011 on Election Organizers
against the application of Article 13 of the paragraph (5); Article 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6),
13
and paragraph (7), Section 87 paragraph (5), and Section 89 paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), and
paragraph (7) Act Number 15 of 2011 on Organizing
The election attributed to Article 22E of the paragraph (5) and Section 28D paragraph (1) UUD
1945.
D. REQUEST REASONS
D. 1. Article 13 paragraph (5) Act No. 15 Year 2011 contradictory Article 22E paragraph (5) UUD 1945
42. That Section 13 of the paragraph (5) is further read: "The selection team reported
implementation of each selection stage to the People's Representative Council".
The provisions are in conflict with Article 22E of the paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution which
The following reads:
Article 22E paragraph (5) UUD 1945: "General election is organized by an
a national, permanent, and independent electoral commission."
43. That the provisions of Article 13 paragraph (5) have been contrary to the spirit
the establishment of an independent Election organizer. Idea of formation
An independent Election organizer must be able to be realized through
an independent process anyway. Giving room to the DPR to participate
as well as in any stage of selection the selection Team is clear
provides influence to the selection process of Election organizers.
titution of 1945;27. That based on the above description, it is clear that individual applicants have
legal standing (legal standing) as a testing applicant of Invite-
Invite Number 15 Year 2011 on Election Organizers and have
relationships (causal verban) against the application of Article 13 paragraph (5),
Section 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7), Section 87 of the paragraph (5), and the Article
89 paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) A sident.
53. That the selection process for the candidate KPU has done
based on the stage defined in Article 13 of the paragraph (3), where the outcome
the election is referred to by the President to the DPR will be not
means and in vain with the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4);
54. That the conditions in which the absence of a selected member of the KPU or
candidate of the KPU are elected by less than seven people, may only happen
if the President does not meet the provisions of Article 14 of the paragraph (1) Act
Organizer Elections or if the President only submits a name according to
the amount required. If the President has met the application of the candidate
a member of the KPU 2 (two) times the number of members of the KPU to the House, then
The authority of the House is to vote and set 7 (seven) candidates for the KPU
top ranking as the candidate The KPU. Therefore, the provisions
17
Article 15 of the paragraph (4) becomes indifferent to the legal relevance as it can
incline legal uncertainty to the selection of the applicant
do and have been submitted by the President to the House;
55. That the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4) reneged on the spirit of submission of the name
as much as 2 (two) times the number of required members Where the submission of 14
(fourteen) the name of the candidate for the KPU by the President to the House is
to provide the space-wide space for the House to determine
its political choice against the people judged to be eligible. qualifying by
The selection team that has done the selection process objectively and
professionals. The spirit so willed that the House of Representatives to be an institution
a representative of the people is not dictated to the consent of the candidate
filed by the President. The DPR was given a choice to determine the candidates who
had been submitted by the President;
56. That the selection process for prospective members of the KPU by the selection team with
uses various scientific instruments as set out in Article 13
paragraph (3) is the stage to filter the potential for professional candidates
and credible. After the stage was completed, only then the DPR as
the political institutions elected members of the KPU on the basis of political considerations. All
the process is a single unit in the election of a member of the KPU.
So that the political process in the House should not have to uphold the outcome of the selection
would be a candidate by using the indicators
the professional and credibility of the candidate. Because, the results of the selection by the Team
selection submitted by the President nevertheless open up the space-breadth
for the House to determine the selected candidate of the 14 names submitted.;
57. That there is a rejection mechanism by the House of Representatives against prospective members of the KPU
that has been proposed by the President 2 (two) times the amount needed
as set forth in Article 15 of the paragraph (4) also gives rise to uncertainty
the law against the names of candidates who have been submitted. In addition, also
raises legal uncertainty over the name refiling process
the candidate KPU is required to the House;
58. That legal uncertainty is referred to as the existence of Article 15
paragraph (4), specifically the " People's Representative Council asks the President to
refile for future KPU members 2 (two) times the name
candidates for KPU are required to the House of Representatives in
18
The most recent time of 14 (fourteen) days since the rejection letter of
The House of Representatives is accepted by the President. " In accordance with Section 15 of the paragraph (6)
it is set that "Replacement of future KPU candidates as
referred to in paragraph (4) is not of the future candidate who has been submitted
previously." Those provisions raise the question, who will
reselection against the future KPU candidate will
be submitted back? If the President is submitting another name other than the one already
filed, on the basis and consideration of what the President determines will be the candidate
to be filed? For example, the selection of candidates for Team
selection has produced only 14 names. That name was told
President. If the name to be refiled does not originate from the candidate
which has been submitted, it is enough for 14 days for the President to
find and submit the name of the new candidate? While the selection team
alone took 3 months to conduct the election process
14 names would be candidates for the KPU;
59. That the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4) result in uncertainty related to the process
refiling the names of potential candidates, the uncertainty of related laws
the selection of the names of candidates for future legal uncertainty
that needed to determine the names of the new candidates;
60. That by the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4) and paragraph (6) raises
the uncertainty of the law, then the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (5) and paragraph (7) that
are the continued arrangements of the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4) mutatis
mutandis also raises legal uncertainty. Thus harming the right
The applicant, specifically the right to legal certainty as guaranteed the Constitution of 1945;
61. That under the above description then the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5),
paragraph (6) and paragraph (7) are clearly contrary to Article 28D of the paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;
D. 3. Section 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6) and paragraph (7) Act No. 15 of 2011 in conflict with Article 22E of the paragraph (5) of the Constitution of 1945
62.That Section 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) has the complete read
as follows:
(4) In the event that no candidate of the KPU is elected or candidate candidate
The candidate was elected less than 7 (seven) persons, the House of Representatives
requesting the President to resubmit the candidate for the KPU
a number of 2 (two) times the name of the KPU candidate needed to
19
The House of Representatives in the longest 14 (fourteen) days
counts since the rejection letter from the House of Representatives was received
by the President.
(5) The rejection of the The People's candidate for the KPU by the House of Representatives
The people as referred to in paragraph (4) can only be done
g.do a series of psych tests;
h.announces the name of the list of future KPU members who pass the selection
written, health test, and psych test to get input and
response community;
i. conduct an interview with the published materials of the Election and
clarification of the community ' s responses and input;
j. set 14 (fourteen) the name of the candidate for the KPU in the plenary meeting;
and
k.deliver 14 (fourteen) the name of the candidate member of the KPU to
the Pre organizers are prosecuted for being able to be open in
running errands and its obligations in the holding of elections.
This openness is important to guarantee The credibility of the process
the staging of the elections, so that it can be accepted by all the groups
both political parties, governments, the tapestry and media. Openness
organizers will open the participation room and public engagement
in exchange of thoughts as well as concepts regarding the staging process
elections.
5. Efficiency (Efficiency) Efficiency and effectiveness are an important component of the whole
the credibility of the election. Efficiency is essential for the staging process
elections due to damage and technical problems may cause
the chaos and rusting of laws and the order. Efficiency and effectiveness
depends on several factors, including staff professionalism,
the resources and most important are sufficient time to
prepare for the elections and train those who have the responsibility
Answer for the election.
6. Proffestionalism (Professionalism) The elections must be managed by a special group/person who has the expertise,
trained and dedicated. A group whose expertise consists of the
experts and is able to manage and carry out the staging of elections.
7. Service-mindedness (Service) According to the International IDEA, the primary reason for the establishment of the governing body
elections are to provide services to stakeholders, both
the society and the election participants. The election organizer must be
23
develops and publishes service standards for each
election stage. Good service is a reject
measure for stakeholders to assess the performance of the organizers
elections. Takes the standard example of basic services often
included in the framework of the electoral law as in Canada, among others:
time-based standards such as deadlines to announce results
elections, voter card deployment or distributing information about
polling locations, public complaints of an
offense got a response and another.
66. That the principles of independence and independence of the KPU are demands
a constitution that must be fulfilled. Article 22E paragraph (5) of the Constitution of 1945 calls it
with the independent nature of the electoral commission. Independent nature in principle-
the international principle is called for independence demanding that the free KPU
from the intervention of the power of both the government, political parties and participants
elections. Likewise in taking decisions over a policy,
giving the same treatment, impartial to a particular group;
67. That for independence or independence of the KPU, either
institutional, or personally the composer, then it will be very
determined by those who are elected to the KPU. Members of the KPU
who are professional and credible will be very helpful to escort the KPU
into a standalone institution and idependen. As for the selection
A professional and credible member of the KPU is required for a recritic process
which is clear and by engaging society widely;
68. That is the process that the selection team does for
selecting a candidate twice the amount needed through the process
long for 3 months with various stages and test selection material;
69. That by the time the election process was meant to have produced the names
of the candidate, through the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4), the DPR could
reject it and request a new name back to the President in the way
and the deadline for which it is not.
have no legal certainty for its birth
candidates of the presumpational and credible KPU members to
organize a KPU assignment as an independent institution;
70. That the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4) do not conform to the will of the constitution
for the organization of general election organizers to be independent. Where is
24
independence is intended only to be realized by filling the institution
with those who are professional and credible;
71. That by virtue of the provisions of Section 15 of the paragraph (4) not appropriate or
contrary to UUD 195, then the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (5), paragraph (6)
and paragraph (7) are the further provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4),
then with The terms of the matter are also contrary to the Constitution
1945;
72. That under the above description then the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4) are clear
contrary to Article 22E of the paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.
D. 4. Article 87 of the Act (5) The Election Organizing Act is in conflict with Article 22E of the paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945
73. That article 87 of the paragraph (5) is further read as follows:
"The selection team reported the implementation of each selection stage to the Board
The People's Representative."
In that provision the selection team is required to report any process
Bawaslu selection to the DPR.
74. That Article 87 paragraph (5) of the Election Organizing Act has
contrary to the spirit of creating an Election that is direct, common,
free, secret, honest, and fair. Such potential is due to the House of Representatives
a state agency of people affiliated to the
political party. Thus the DPR will tend to exert political influence
outstanding to the Bawaslu Selection Team in the effort the Selection Team selects
members of Bawaslu who are independent and far from a momentary political interest;
75. That the provisions of Section 87 paragraph (5) of the Election Organizing Act are close
in relation to protecting the election of an asas
Direct, general, free, secret, honest, and fair. If there is a member
Bawaslu who is affected by political interest in the House, then it is strong
likely as the guardian of a Luber Election
and the Jurdil will be difficult to materiate;
D. 5. Article 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of the Election Organizing Act in conflict with Article 22E of the paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945
76. That Article 89 verse (4) reads as follows:
25
" In case no candidate member Bawaslu is elected or prospective member
Bawaslu elected less than 5 (five) persons, the People's Representative Council
asks the President to resubmit the candidate of the Bawaslu.
a number of 2 (two) times the name of the subordinate member of the Bawaslu required to
the House of Representatives in the longest time 14 (fourteen) days
count since the rejection letter from the House of Representatives wility and guarantees of certainty. Transparency also
is defined by the availability of sufficient, accurate and timely information
about the public policy and its formation process. Information that
will make it easier for the public to participate in the
supervision so that the issued policies can provide the results
optimal for society and prevent cheating and manipulation that
will benefit certain groups disproportionately.
Based on that understanding, then in the context of transparency
election icant harms
its constitutional rights;
2. Against the a quo of the provisions of the provisions of a quo which is being honed by
The applicant, the Government can understand the legal logic and argumentation that
built by the applicant through the study and the general principles that
have been deciphed in a plea. We all have a wish for
to realize an honest and fair election and
a professional election organizer, integrity, having an assistant with a bag
and accountable. Therefore on this good opportunity if the norm
a quo is considered to be unable to realize the expected legal politics
that, let us seek the most appropriate and aligned norms for
achieving the ideal position. the organizers of the election. We need to find out
29
an appropriate mechanism for election organizers to be obtained
that may expand its duties in full. This normative framework
needs to be constantly weated together so that it can be obtained
a high predictability that by such mechanism can
be obtained certainty of candidate members of the election organizers who
professionals, integrity, have capacity and accountable.
III. Conclusion
Based on that explanation above, the Government submitted to
Assembly of Justice of the Constitutional Court to examine, prosecute plea
Testing of Act No. 15 of 2011 against the Act
Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia Year of 1945, and gives a ruling that
wise and adiil-adim (ex aequo et bono).
[2.4] weighed that against the applicant, the Board
The People's Representative (DPR) had submitted a description in the trial
on March 5, 2012 and the written caption received at Kepaniteraan
The court on March 22, 2012, which in the first place described the
thing as follows:
A. PROVISIONS OF THE 2011 PASAL ACT OF 2011 ON THE STAGING OF THE ELECTIONS (FOR THE NEXT ABBREVIATED ACT OF 15/2011), WHICH WAS REFERRED TO AS TESTING AGAINST UUD IN 1945.
The applicant in his application submits testing of Article 13
paragraph (5), Section 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7), Section 87 of the paragraph (5), and
Section 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) Act Number 15 2011
against the 1945 Constitution;
The applicant assumes the provisions of chapter a quo Act No. 15
The year 2011 is contrary to Article 28D of the paragraph (1), and Article 22E paragraph (1),
paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.
B. RIGHTS AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY DEEMED BY THE APPLICANT TO BE HARMED BY THE PASSING OF THE NUMBER 15 ACT
30
OF 2011 ABOUT THE ELECTION ORGANIZERS (FOR FURTHER ABBREVIATED Act 15/2011)
The applicant in his request suggests that with
the enactment of Article 13 of the paragraph (5), Section 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7),
Article 87 of the paragraph (5), as well as Section 89 paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of the bill a quo
is considered to cause legal uncertainty in the selection process of the member
KPU which would have a bad impact on the independence and professional KPU
as Election Organizers and cause of occurrence conflicting with
UUD 1945;
The applicant assumes the entry of the sections a quo Act of 15/2011
potentially poses a constitutional loss that at its point
is put forward as follows:
1. That according to the applicant provisions Article 13 paragraph (5) has been
contrary to the spirit of the establishment of election organizers that
is independent. The applicant assumes that giving space
to the House of Representatives to participate in any stage of selection
The Selection Team is clearly going to exert influence over the selection process
organizers. Elections. According to the applicant this must be understood "to enter
the mix" of the House in every stage selection of the Election organizers has
relieving the spirit of realizing the independence of the organizers
Election; (vide Plea a quo thing. 11 figure 43);
2. That the applicant assumes the provisions of Article 13 of the paragraph (5)
contains a legal blur that leads to uncertainty
the law for the Selection Team. The dissolution of the law appears because in
Article 13 of the 15/2011 Act there is a conflict between the terms of the verse that
one with another. In Article 13 of the paragraph (3) the letter k resolute
it is stated that the Selection Team delivered 14 (fourteen) of the name of the candidate
member of the KPU to the President. According to Team applicants
Selections to submit 14 (fourteen) prospective names of the KPU
to the President are the assignment consequences given
the President to the Selection Team. While on Article 13 of the paragraph (5) instead
appears a provision that requires the Selection Team to submit a report
implementation of the selection phase to the People's Representative Council; (vide
Plea a quo thing. 11 figure 45);
31
3. That in his request is set forth, the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4),
in particular the phrase "In the event that no candidate of the KPU is elected or
the candidate of the elected KPU is less and 7 (seven) persons ...", stirring
uncertainty laws against the results of the work that have been and will be performed
The applicant. According to the applicant, how could it be the condition
where no candidate of the KPU is elected, and how is it possible
a candidate for a member of the KPU was elected less than 7 (seven) people? Cause
provisions of Article 14 paragraph (1) Act of 15/2011 expressly declare the President
submitting 14 (fourteen) candidate names or 2 (two) times the number of members
KPU to the People's Representative Council at least 14 (fourteen) days
counting since the receipt of the KPU candidate's file; (vide Plea
a quo thing. 13 figure 50);
4. That there is a rejection mechanism by the House of Representatives against prospective members
The President who has been submitted by the President 2 (two) times the amount
required as set in Article 15 of the paragraph (4) also raises
the uncertainty of the law against the names of candidates who have been submitted.
In addition, it also raises legal uncertainty over the process
refiling the name of the KPU candidate needed to
the House. (vide PLEA A QUO THING. 14 points 57);
5. That by the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (4) and paragraph (6) raises
the uncertainty of the law, then the provisions of Article 15 of the paragraph (5) and paragraph (7) that
are the continuubmit fully to the Speaker/Assembly of the Constitutional Court to
consider and judge it, whether the applicant meets the qualification
as a legal or non-legal party, as
determined in Section 51 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 24 of 2003
about Constitutional Court.
III. About the 2011 15-Year Act testing matter on Election Organizers of the General Election
1. That the Government can fully understand the thoughts of the applicant
with the existence of the norm a quo which according to the appl ccording to the applicant appears because
in Article 13 of the Act of 15/2011 there is disagreement between the provisions of the verse
one with the other. In Article 13 of the paragraph (3) the letter k resolute
it is stated that the Selection Team delivered 14 (fourteen) of the name of the candidate
member of the KPU to the President. According to Team's Obligers
35
Selections to submit 14 (fourteen) names of prospective KPU members
to the President are the assignment consequences given
the President to the Selection Team. While on Article 13 of the paragraph (5) of the Act
15/2011 it appears a provision that requires the Selection Team
to submit a report for the selection of the selection stage to the Board
People's Representative;
(3) That of the Applicant's postulate That is, the House of Representatives view that
against the substance "Selection Team reported any selection phase
to the House" has a background that to control and
know the mechanism as well as progress of each stage selection, then the House
as the copper of the country that has the supervising function entitled
knows the process, so it is expected to not happen again
such error in the selection process for selecting member KPU of the year
2008, then the DPR as if in "fait accompli" with the candidates
will tested in the House based on the selection results by the Selection Team. This
is the application of a norm and there is no problem
the constitutionality of a violated norm. Nevertheless, the House needed
affirm that the House did not intervene in the Selection Team's work and only
in order to find out which the selection process was running. That the DPR
views the provisions of Article 13 Act of 15/2011 is clear, firm and certain
set the selection process against candidates for the KPU conducted by
Selection Team, hence not at all in the same amount of dissolution
the law as the applicant postulate, for the verses
in Article 13 of Act 15/2011 is clear, firm, and certain (lex certa) is not
the multi-interpretation norm, so as not contrary to Article 28D
paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;
(4) That the Applicant ' s postulate that the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (4)
The a quo Act, specifically the phrase "In case no candidate
members of the elected KPU or candidates for elected KPU are less and 7
(seven) people ...", resulting in legal uncertainty over the work.
which the applicant has and will do, is unfounded
because the postulation is merely the concern and assumptions of the
the applicant himself, as it is not based on data and facts. Against
The petitioners, the House of Representatives view that it is the
36
is not clear and uncertain if the phrase " In case no candidate of the KPU candidate
elected or the candidate of the KPU elected is less than 7 (seven) persons
omitted. That according to the House of Representatives provisions Section 15 of the paragraph (4) Invite-
Invite a quo is antisipative (futurelogy) against the possibility
an event in which case unmet the number of prospective members
the KPU which Determined. Article a quo provides a legal certainty
to set all possible possible terms in
the election process of the KPU by the DPR so that it does not exist
a legal void;
(5) That Respond to Section 87 of the paragraph (5)
and Article 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of the 15/2011 Act
in principle equal to the application of the description in
which is considered to be contrary. with Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 22E of the paragraph
(1) of the 1945 Constitution, against the Applicant of the Petitioners, the DPR view
matters related to the selection process and the selection set in
Article 87 of the paragraph (5) and Article 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7) Act
15/2011, in principle equal to the one that has been described such.
That there is essentially no contention between Article 87 of the paragraph (5) Act
15/2011 with Article 28D of paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, by due provision
The norm of Article 87 of the Act of 15/2012 does not give rise to multitapsir. Related to
Section 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of the 15/2011 Act that
is disputed by the applicant, the House of Representatives views that the selection process and
the selection of the Bawaslu members at all has no relevance to
direct election guarantee, general, free, secret,
honest, and fair every five years once mandated in Article 22E
paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, so that between Article 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6),
paragraph (7) The 15/2011 Act is not appropriate if it is disputed with Article 22E paragraph
(1) UUD 1945;
(6) That it needs to be addressed in this description, that in an effort
corrects the performance of the election organizers demanded to be
independent and professional, then there must be a recruitment pattern
that is good anyway. Based on the recruitment experience of a prospective member of the KPU
in 2008 to host the 2009 election, it looks like a condition
that is not fully ideal as evidenced by the performance of the KPU which
37
is not good. One visible fact is related to the process
update of the election data as well as the drafting of voter lists, so that the DPR
Rl Period 2004-2009 formed the Angket Committee on the Right
Constitutional Citizen of the Country better known as the Angket Panitia
DPT. The committee investigates the DPT case where there are many
citizens who are not registered and/or registered in a double,
so that the accuracy of the voter list is highly inaccurate. That one
The recommendation delivered by the Angket Committee is the necessity
replacing the current KPU members as it is judged to be not credible in
running the mandate of the Act. Further recommendations
directed to the commission that is aiming to improve the rules of the main rule
that is Law No. 22 of 2007 on Election Organizers;
(7) That the main substance of the fix on Law No. 22 2007
which later became a replacement with the new Act was
how to create a credible election organizer and
professional. Therefore, the recruitment mechanism becomes one
the attention of Commission II in particular the Working Committee to be corrected to achieve
the goal of forming a credible and professional election organizer;
(8) That in the provisions Act No. 15 Year 2011 on Organizing
Elections are expressly set about the recruitment way lirticle 22E of the paragraph (5) of the Constitution. 1945. On the basis of such descriptions,
House views that the provisions of Article 13 of the paragraph (5) of the Act of 15/2011 are not
may be disputed with Article 22E of the paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution;
(2) That the DPR is not in agreement with the Applicant ' s postulate
assuming the provisions of Article 13 paragraph (5) of the 15/2011 Act contain
a legal blur that leads to a legal uncertainty for the Team
Selections. The dissolution of the law a ty, capability, and professionalism become a hold in
carry out the task.
[2.6] weighed that to shorten the description in this ruling,
everything that happens in the trial is quite appointed in news of the event
a trial which is one unbreakable unity with
this verdict;
41
3. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
[3.1] A draw that the petitioners submitted two fixes
pleas. First, a plea fix on February 20, 2012
which is still in the middle of the application of the application of application improvement. Second,
application improvements submitted on February 28, 2012 that have
exceeded the deadline of filing for a supposed application for
on February 22, 2012 as defined by Article 39 MK bills.
Thus the next Court will only consider
first plea improvement, submitted on February 20, 2012;
[3.2] Draw that the intent and purpose of the applicant ' s plea
is to invoke the testing of the constitutionality of Article 13 (5), Section 15
paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), Section 87 of the paragraph (5), Section 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph
(5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of the Act No. 15 Year 2011 on
General Election Organizing (sheet State of the Republic of Indonesia Year
2011 Number 101, Additional sheet of state of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5246,
subsequently called Act 15/2011) against Article 22E of paragraph (1) and paragraph (5), and
Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945
(next called UUD 1945);
[3.3] weighed that before considering the subject matter,
The Constitutional Court (later called the Court) was first going
consider:
a. The Court's authority to prosecute the a quo;
b. legal standing (legal standing) of the applicant to submit
requests a quo;
Against those two, the Court considers it
following:
The Court authority
[3.4] Weighing that under Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945 and
Article 10 paragraph (1) of the letter a Law Number 24 of 2003 on
The Constitutional Court as amended by Law Number
8 Year 2011 on Changes To The Act Number 24 Of 2003
42
on the Constitutional Court (State of the Republic of Indonesia in 2011
number 70, additional sheet of state of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5226,
subsequently called the MK Act), as well as Article 29 of the paragraph (1) of the letter of the Constitution of Indonesia in the United States Constitution of Indonesia.
No. 48 of 2009 on the Power of Justice (State Sheet
Republic of Indonesia 2009 No. 157, Additional Gazette
Republic of Indonesia Number 5076, hereafter called Act 48/2009), one
authority The constitutional court is to prosecute at first level and
the last one The verdict is final to test the Act against
Basic Law;
[3.5] Draw that the applicant's plea is testing
the constitutionality of the norm Act, in casu Article 13 of the paragraph (5), Section 15 of the paragraph
(4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6) and paragraph (7), Section 87 of the paragraph (5), Section 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5),
paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of the Act of 15/2011 against Article 22E of paragraph (1) and paragraph (5), and
Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, thus, Court authorities to
prosecute a quo;
Legal Occupation (Legal Standing) The applicant
[3.6] weighed that under Article 51 of the paragraph (1) MK Act and
The explanation, which may apply for testing the Act
against the Constitution of 1945 is those who are consider the rights and/or authority
its constitutional constitutionality given by the 1945 Constitution is harmed by the enactment of a
Act, i.e.:
a. Individual citizens of Indonesia (including groups of people
have common interests);
b. the unity of the indigenous law society as long as it is alive and in accordance with
the development of the society and the principle of the Republic of the Republic of Indonesia
which is set in Undang-Undang;
c. the public or private legal entity;
d. state agencies;
Thus, the applicant in testing the Act against
The 1945 Constitution must explain and prove first:
a. the use of the applicant as referred to in Article 51 of the paragraph
(1) MK Act;
43
b. the constitutional rights and/or constitutional authority granted by the Constitution
1945 resulting from the enactment of the required Act
testing;
[3.7] The Court has also been held since the Court's ruling
Constitution Number 006 /PUU-III/2005 dated 31 May 2005 and the ruling
Constitutional Court Number 11 /PUU-V/2007 dated September 20, 2007,
and subsequent rulings established that loss of rights and/or
authority constitutional as referred to in Article 51 of paragraph (1) Act
MK must meets five terms, that is:
a. the rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant given by
Constitution of 1945;
b. the rights and/or constitutional authority by the applicant is considered
aggrieved by the enactment of the testing Act;
c. the constitutional loss must be specific (special) and actual or
At least a potential that according to reasonable reasoning can be confirmed
will occur;
d. the presence of causal relationships (causal verband) between the intended losses
and the expiring of the testing Act;
e. It is possible that with the request of a request then
constitutional losses such as the postulate will not or no longer occur;
[3.8] Draw that based on the description as it is on
paragraph [3.6] and paragraph [3.7] above, subsequently the Court will consider regarding the legal position (legal standing) the applicant
in the a quo plea which postulate the following:
[3.8.1] That the Applicant I is up to the applicant III is a citizen of the country Indonesia, a lecturer in law enforcement, is a state that is a taxpayer and is entitled to vote in
a general election, as well as caring for the advocacy activities
direct elections, general, public, free, secret, honest, and fair (vide proof
P-4);
That the applicant I to the applicant III has an interest
constitutional for the legal norms that govern the filling of the post
44
branches of state power, including general election organizers,
free of deviation in order for the constitutional process to walk
as it should be;
That the enaccation of the 15/2011 Act of Law The dimohonkan fortill has a binding legal force.
[2.5] weighed that against the applicant, the Commission
The General Election has delivered an oral description in the trial
March 5, 2012 which is at its point expressed things as follows:
The election of the Electoral Commission as an organizer has Notes and
once invited by the Commission II of the House to provide input-input
or experiences that have ever been obtained;
The Commission of Elections Commission as the organizer agrees to the integrity,
credibili ivered
oral description delivered in the March 5, 2012 trial and
written captions received in the Court of Justice on the 22nd.
March 2012 who on the point expressed the following:
The view that the provisions of Article 13 paragraph (5) Act 15/2011 have been clear and resolute
set the selection process against candidates for KPU performed by
Selection Team in conducting selection stages to report to
DPR, so it is unfounded if this norm by the applicant
is understood to have eliminated the spirit of realizing independence
the general election organizers. As for the Selection Team is required to report
every selection step to the House, does not mean it can affect
the selection process of the election organizers. Selection process activities by
Selection team against candidate KPU may not be associated with the rights
and/or KPU constitutional authority guaranteed in Article 22E paragraph
(5) UUD 1945;
House of Representatives as a state institution which has the right supervising function
knows the selection process, so it is expected that no more errors are
as in the selection process to select the KPU member in 2008,
then the DPR as if in "fait accompli" with the candidates going
48
is tested in the House based on the selection results by the Selection Team. This is
the application of a norm and there is no question of constitutionality of an
the norm is violated. Nevertheless, the House did not intervene Team's work
Selections and just want to know only the selection process is running.
The view that the House of Representatives views, the provisions of Article 13 of the 15/2011 Act are clear,
firmly and surely set the process selection against future KPU member
performed by the Selection Team. According to the House, the norm is not at least
there is a legal blur as the petitioners have postused,
because the verses in Article 13 of the Act of 15/2011 are obvious, assertive, and certain
(lex certa), not a multi-standard norm. interpretation, so as not contradictory
with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;
The view that the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (4) of the Act of 15/2011 are antisipative to
the probability of an event in terms of unfulfilled amounts
candidate for the specified KPU member. Article a quo instead provides
the legal certainty to regulate any possible possibility
in the election process of the KPU by the DPR, so that there is no
legal void;
The Related Act of Section 89 verse (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) Act of 15/2011
Provided by the Applicant, the House of Representatives view that the selection process
and the selection of the Bawaslu members at all have no relevance to
the warranty of the Election Direct, public, free, secret,
honest, and fair every five years. mandated in Article 22E
paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, so that Article 89 paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), paragraph (7) Act
15/2011 is not appropriate if tented with Article 22E paragraph (1) of the Constitution
1945;
[3.15] A draw of the Commission The General Election (KPU) delivered
oral description in the March 5, 2012 trial, at its point
as follows:
The election of the Electoral Commission as a general election organizer has
record and never invited by Commission II of the House to provide
input-input or experience that Never got it.
49
The Commission of the Electoral Commission as a general election organizer agrees
integrity, credibility, capability, and professionalism become a handle
in carrying out the task.
Court opinion
[3.16] weighed that under the control of the applicant's request,
the filed papers, the Government, the Council's description
The People's Representative, and the Commission on the Election Commission, as well as the facts
which was revealed in the trial, the Court granted considerations-
considerations as follows:
[3.17] Draw that before the Court states its opinion
specifically towards the postulate of the applicant, the Court needs to
put forth the following:
1. Article 1 of the paragraph (2) of the Constitution of 1945 states, "Sovereignty is in the hands of the people
and implemented according to the Basic Law". Article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution
1945 declares, "The State of Indonesia is the legal state." This
means the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people in the government of a state that
the democratic is based on the law based on Pancasila
and the 1945 Constitution;
2. One of the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people is being carried out
a general election which is the best mechanism for a transition
power and leadership that also provide reassurance for the rights
civil and Citizen politics in selecting figures deemed feasible
and good for holding state government;
3. Article 22E of paragraph (1) and paragraph (5) of the Constitution of 1945 have determined that the election
is held directly, publicly, freely, confidential, honest, and
fair every five years by a public election commission
national, fixed, and independent;
4. The Court in Putermination Number 11 /PUU-VIII/2010 dated March 18
2010 that tested Law No. 22 of 2007 on
The organizers of the General Election, among others, consider:
50
"That to ensure the convening of a luber general election and
jurdil, Article 22E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution determines that," The general election at
is organized by a general election commission is national,
remain and independent ". The phrase "a general election commission" in the 1945 Constitution
does not refer to an institution's name, but points to
the function of the national election, it remains and
independent. As such, according to the Court, the holding function
General elections are not only implemented by the Electoral Commission
(KPU), will but include the general election supervising agencies in
this is The General Election Supervising Board (Bawaslu) as one entity
functions of national, fixed, and
independent elections.
This definition complies with the provisions of the 1945 Constitution that
mandates the presence of a general election organizer
independent for the performance of a general election that meets the principle-
the luber principle And a judge. Hosting elections without
oversight by independent agencies, will threaten the principles
luber andeal position
the general election such;
We need to find a proper mechanism to be obtained
a general election organizer who is able to expand its duties
the plenary. This normative framework needs to be constantly bendable together
so it can be obtained a high predictability. With the mechanism
it can be obtained certainty of candidate members ' candidates
professional elections, integrity, have capacity, and
accountable.
[3.14] A draw that the People's Representative Council (DPR) del ragraph (1) 1945 Constitution which states, "General elections are organized
directly, general, free, secret, honest, and fair every five years",
according to the Court, the norm Article 22E paragraph (1) UUD 1945 is the assertion
of the principles in the holding of the general election embraced by
Constitution of 1945, as well as the determination of the election period of the general election itself which
must be exercised every five years, while the norms of Act 15/2011
a quo which is being honed by the petitioners at the point of its own.
is the norm that governs the process of sealing the Supervising Board members
The General Election by the Selection Team and the selection of the Supervising Board members
The General Election by the People's Representative Council, so it is not appropriate and
does not fit if made a test stone in an Act testing application
a quo . Thus, the postulate a quo is unwarranted according to
the law;
[3.19] The draw that based on all such considerations in
above, the Applicant Dalil of the applicant is not proven by law;
4. KONKLUSI
Based on the assessment of the facts and laws as described in
above, the Court concluded:
[4.1] The court is authorized to prosecute the a quo;
54
[4.2] The applicant has a legal position (legal standing) for
applying for a quo;
[4.3] Dalil-dalil The applicant is not proven by law;
Based on Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia Year
1945, Act No. 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court
as amended by Law No. 8 Year 2011 on
Changes to the Number Act 24 Years 2003 on the Court
Constitution (State Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia) 2011 Number 70,
Additional State Sheet Indonesia Number 5226), And Invite-
Invite Number 48 Of 2009 On The Power Of Justice (State Sheet
Republic Of Indonesia 2009 Number 157, Additional Sheet Of Country
Republic of Indonesia Number 5076);
5. AMAR RULING
PROSECUTING,
States denied the Petitioner for the whole.
So decided in a Meeting of the Judges by
nine Constitution Judges, the Moh. Mahfud MD., as Chairman of the Union
Member, Achmad Sodiki, M. Akil Mochtar, Hamdan Zoelva, Maria Farida Indrati,
Muhammad Alim, Harjono, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, and Anwar Usman, respectively-
respectively as Members, at on Monday, respectively. date four, February, year
two thousand thirteen, and spoken in the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court
open to the public at on Wednesday, the thirteenth date, February, year
two thousand three , finished pronounced at 14.59 WIB, by seven Judges
Constitution, Achmad Sodiki, as Chairman of the Members, M. Akil
Mochtar, Hamdan Zoelva, Muhammad Alim, Harjono, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, and
Anwar Usman, respectively as Member, with an accompanied by Luthfi
Widagdo Eddyono. as Panitera Replacement, as well as attended by the petitioners
55
or its power, the Government or its representing, and the People's Representative Council or
represent.
CHAIRMAN,
ttd.
Achmad Sodiki
MEMBERS,
ttd.
M. Akil Mochtar
ttd.
Hamdan Zoelva
ttd.
Muhammad Alim
ttd.
Harjono
ttd.
Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi
ttd.
Anwar Usman
PANITERA REPLACEMENT,
ttd.
Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono
52
self-defined and free from the influence of the agency or any other party
based on reasonable reasoning for the embodiment of folk sovereignty in order
resulting in a democratic government based on the law
and justice;
[3.18] A draw that based on such matters above, the Court
will consider the Applicant ' s control as follows:
[3.18.1] That Article 13 of the paragraph (5) of the 15/2011 Act is the norm that governs one of the activities of the selection process in selecting a member candidate
Election Commission, which is the Selection Team must report the implementation of each
stage of selection to the People's Representative Council. According to the applicant, by
due to the task of the Selection Team provided by the President and not at all
a working relationship with the People's Representative Council, it imposes
the answer to the selection of each stage of the selection. The Selection Team is becoming
not legally relevant;
According to the Court, reporting the implementation of each selection step to
The House of Representatives does not mean it will interfere with the independence of the Commission
General Election as determined by Article 22E of the paragraph (5) of the Constitution of 1945.
The mechanism thus does not mean any intervention against the implementation of the task
The Selection Team, let alone against the Election Commission institutionally. Thing
it is the need for the delivery of information to the House of Representatives
People for the continuation of the Election Commission member selection phase
next and be part of the process of overseeing each other and offset
(checks and balances) between state agencies. The Court agrees with
The People's Representative Council which makes it clear that the selection process activities by
The Selection Team against the candidate of the General Election Commission cannot be attributed
with rights and/or constitutional authority. The Electoral Commission which
is guaranteed in Article 22E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution. Accordingly, the
applicant a quo is unreasonable;
[3.18.2] Against the Applicant that Article 15 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6) and paragraph (7) of the Act of 15/2011 in conflict with Article 28D of the paragraph (1) and Article
22E paragraph (5) Constitution of 1945, according to the Court, the existence of Article 15 paragraph (4), paragraph
(5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6) and paragraph (7) Act of 15/2011 instead gives legal certainty to the
mechanism of the electoral process of the General Election Commission on the Council
53
The People's Representative and no coordinates with the independence of the Commission
The General Election is as intended in Article 22E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.
In addition, the norm cannot be viewed as contrary to the 1945 Constitution
because of the election process of the Election Commission in the House of Representatives
The people are thus open law policies that cannot be tested
unless done arbitrarily and beyond the authority
Act-forming, as well as not assering the principles that
contained in the 1945 Constitution, such as the principle of people's sovereignty, principle
equations, principles of fairness, and the principle of non-discrimination. Thus, dalil
the applicant a quo is unreasonable;
[3.18.3] Against the Applicant that Article 87 of the paragraph (5), Article 89 of the paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), and paragraph (7) of the 15/2011 Act in conflict with the Article
22E pa
