Advanced Search

Test The Material Constitutional Court Number 109/puu-X/2012 Year 2012

Original Language Title: Uji Materi Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 109/PUU-X/2012 Tahun 2012

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.
Party, the C Party remains 2 seats, which can be 1-seat D Party, but the E. Party's example of this could be simulated the results of the sound acquisition in Jakarta ' s DKI Province. So, by changing the size of the constituency, shifting the mapping of the constituency, and to tamper with some of the other variables (which were made possible by Law No. 12/2003), simulation of the 2004 Legislative Elections vote tally, it turns out to be able to produce a The seats are different from the seats that the KPU has set up.

5

10. The applicant's opinion in evidence of P-4 on page 2, page 3, and page

4 states that the charge material of Article 46 of the paragraph (2) Invite

Invite Number 12 Year 2003, is a biases and multi commentaries.

11. With the charge material of Section 24 (4) and the charge material of Article 27 paragraph

(4) the Act No. 8 of 2012 which still remains in reference

to the charge material of Article 46 of the paragraph (2) Act Number 12 of the Year

2003, the applicant is very feel the rights and/or authority

its constitutionality is violated and disadvantaged as warranted by the Article

28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Second Amendment.

12. That next in the Constitutional Court Decree No. 006 /PUU-

III/2005 and Putermination Number 010 /PUU-III/2005 have determined 5 (five)

the terms of the constitutional disadvantage as referred to in Article 51 of the paragraph

(1) MK Act, as following:

a. existence of the right and/or constitutional authority provided by

Constitution of 1945;

b. The rights and/or constitutional authority are considered to have been

aggrieved by the enactment of the testing Act;

c. rights loss and/or constitutional authority are swatting

specific (specifically) and actual or at least any potential

according to reasonable reasoning can be certain to occur;

d. a causal link between the rights loss

and/or constitutional authority with the Act

is required testing;

e. there is a possibility that with the application being granted then

rights loss and/or the constitutional authority that is postulate is not

again occurs.

13. On the execution of the formation of the constituency (dapil) as

referred to by the charge section 46 paragraph (2) Act No. 12

In 2003, the process of the formation could be considered detriable

The applicant is due to process breaking or contemplation of the region

the administration could happen with a possible number of options (proof

P-4 page 3)

14. For example, if the legislative election results are won in absolute terms

by one of the election participants, the results of this election could potentially be not recognized

6

legitimately as it may be that the other Election participants will assume

that the result of the illumination is full of cheating, and this outness

could start with a dapilnya formation approach (for prospective members

DPRD) which is multi commend and closed.

15. If reviewed further, it would generally be a lot of harm

citizens due to their dapill formation approach in addition to

posed a corruption effect [because of the extra cost to be

issued by the ocnum Members of a particular political party to cooperate

with the Member States Election Commission (KPUD)

form the engineering dapil] can also cause mutual suspicion among the

Election participants. If the curial one has come to the point of conflict that is

very pointy, this will lead to political stability, stability

the security and stability of the country's economy becomes disrupted, which in

eventually will be many adverse people because inflation and prices will

increase, consumer purchasing power decreases, severing

Working relations (layoffs), unemployment rate is higher, revenue

national decline, economic growth rate declining and last

there was a national economic recession

16. If the situation is described in points 13 and points 14 above

happens, the applicant is concerned when later to be a member of the KPUD

due to recognition, guarantee, protection and legal certainty as

members of the KPUD could be unclear.

17. That based on those features above, the applicant is a party

which has a causal relationship (causal verband) between the rights loss

and/or the constitutional authority by the enactment of the Act

which be asked to be tested, because of the charge materials Section 24 of the paragraph (4) and

Section 27 paragraph charge matter (4) Act No. 8 of 2012

about the General Election of the People's Representative Council, the House of Representatives

Regions, and the House of Representatives The people of the Regions are contrary to the article

28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Second Amendment.

18. It is clear that if the a quo does not provide any recognition, guarantee,

the protection and legal certainty for any citizen, the impact

is bad about to befall to any citizen. As such,

automatically the applicant has a legal position (legal standing)

7

as a party in the Test Request Act against

UUD 1945

19. That the applicant is concerned if the charge material of Article 24 (4) and

of charge of Article 27 paragraph (4) Act No. 8 of 2012

is not overturned by the Assembly of Justice of the Constitutional Court. Rights and/or

the constitutional authority of the applicant guaranteed by UUD 1945 is

factual and potential aggrieved

C. THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION Below is a copy of the subject-related section

test for the material testing:

1. Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Second Amendment.

"Everyone is entitled to the recognition, guarantee, protection, and

fair legal certainty as well as the same treatment before the law".

2. Article 46 Of The paragraph (2) Invite Number 12 Year 2003.

" Redemption of House member constituency, DPRD Province and DPRD

District/City determined by KPU with provisions of each area

elections get seat allocation between 3 (three) up to 12 (two

thirteen) seats ".

3. Article 24 Of The paragraph (4) Of The Number 8 (2012).

"Further provisions on electoral regions and seat allocation

members of the provincial DPndonesian Legislative Elections, 2004 Buklet & CD-ROM

KPU.Published 2004 by The Electoral Commission in Jakarta, Written in

Indonesia ".

9. Preliminary evidence cited from the statement of Pipit S. Kartawidjaja and Print

Pramono via his book entitled "Akal-Akalan Election Region"

in the preface of the vii page in paragraph 3 of

http://www.watchindonesia.org/Buecher/Akal-Akalan.pdf, reads " Which is interesting, mapping of election areas conducted by the KPU appears to benefit a particular party and harms the other party. For example, one constituency that was formed transverse from south to north, after the votes were counted, the acquisition of the seats was the A 3-seat Party, the B and C respectively two seats, and the D 1 seat. But if that election area was formed from east to west, the acquisition of the seats could turn into a 2-seat, B 3-seat RD as referred to in paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and

paragraph (3) is set in KPU rules".

4. Article 27 Of The paragraph (4) Invite Number 8 Year 2012.

"Further provisions about constituency and seat allocation

members of the district/city DPRD as referred to in paragraph (1), paragraph

(2), and paragraph (3) are set in KPU rules".

5. Article 4 paragraph (2) of the Constitution of the Constitutional Court Number 06 /PMK/2005

on the Event Guidelines in the Test Perkara Invite Invite.

" The material testing is the test of the Act in respect of the material

the charge in the paragraph, section, and/or section of Law considered

contrary to the 1945 Constitution ".

6. Section 14 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court

No. 06 /PMK/2005 on the Event Guidelines in Test Perkara

Invite Invite.

8

(1) The associated parties referred to Section 13 paragraph (1) hurup g are parties

directly or indirectly with the subject

the request.

(2) Related parties of direct interest are the parties

and/or its authority is affected by the subject of the application.

(3) The related party as referred to as paragraph (2) may be entitled

The same one with the applicant in the trial in terms of the caption

and the evidence tool he has been adjudicator of has not been sufficiently represented in

The captions and evidence tools submitted by the President/Government,

DPR, and/or DPD.

Here is the reason and the subject of material testing:

1. That according to Section 14 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) of the Regulation

Constitutional Court Number 06/PMK/2005, the Election Commission

(KPU) can be categorised as an interest-related party

directly due to rights and/or The authority to create the rules

as referred to in Section 24 of paragraph (4) and Section 27 paragraph (4)

Act No. 8 Year 2012 is affected by the subject

the applicant request.

2. That the Provincial Election Commission of the Province is the executor

form the candidate of the provincial DPRD Member States in the administrative region

Province.

3. That the Municipal Election Commission/City is the executor

form the candidate of the Member of the District Council/City in the region

the administration of the regency/City.

4. Until recently the material charge of Article 46 paragraph (2) Act Number

12 Years 2003 has not been repealed. As such, the materials

Section 24 of the paragraph (4) and the mutant material Section 27 paragraph (4) Invite

Invite Number 8 of 2012 automatically still refers

to the charge materials Section 46 of the paragraph (2) Act Number 12 of the Year

2003.

5. In material testing papers (P-4 evidence) entitled "Methods or

Principles of the Establishment of Elections Under the Act

Number 12 Year 2003 and Act No. 8 of 2012".

The applicant has made and developed an approach

9

mathematics for the formation of a dapil. Intent and purpose

This approach is to direct KPU and KPUD members

to be obedient to the election principle (effective and efficient) especially in

the attitude of honesty as well as justice in terms of making regulatory regulations

and form dapil candidate members of the Provincial and District Council/City.

6. Papers made in P-4 evidence (specifically in section B), if

further be beneficial for society, participants and

Election supervisors, due to the public, participants and supervisors of the Election could

directly could Supervising the formation of the leaves is open

and transparent so that in the event of results of the test results

indications of an aberration, the results of this outcome

will be easier in correction. In addition, the contents of this applicant's paper

will be closely related to a mandatory state obligation

run, in case of the prevention of alleged bribery crimes in

the process of forming the candidate of the DPRD candidate Province and Kabupaten/

City. Furthermore, if the content of the applicant's paper is not used,

The applicant is concerned that the state's obligation as

means that it will not be accommodated into Article 24 and Article 27

Act Number 8 of the Year 2012.

7. In principle, the applicant agrees with the KPU that the formation of

a dapil for prospective members of the DPRD in the province region and

District/City should be formed using a methodology.

8. However, in Article 24 of the paragraph (4) and Article 27 of the paragraph (4)

Act No. 8 of 2012, the Act a quo

has set a double standard in providing policy options

(legal policy). On the one hand, the KPU in making provisions regarding

dapil and seat allocation can be interpreted that the formation of the dapil and

determination of the seat allocation could be made using an

rule. On the other hand, the KPU is in making provisions regarding the dapil

and the seat allocation can be interpreted that the formation of the dapil and

determination of the seat allocation must be made using a

methodology and the settings are submitted To the KPU.

10

9. The applicant assumes that Article 24 of the paragraph (4) and section 27 paragraph (4)

Act No. 8 of the Year 2012 could reflect injustice

(injustice) and legal uncertainty (legal uncertainty).

10. The applicant wants to state that based on the description above,

the charge materials Section 24 of the paragraph (4) and the charge matter Article 27 paragraph (4)

Act Number 8 of the Year 2012 concerning the Member General Election

The House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council, and Council

The Regional People's Representative is contrary to Article 28D clause (1) UUD

1945 Second Amendment.

11. Thus, Section 24 of the paragraph (4) and the materials

charge Article 27 paragraph (4) of the Law No. 8 of the Year 2012 concerning

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

Regions, and the House of Representatives The people of the Regions must be declared "no

have a binding legal force".

12. For that to be Article 24 of the paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4) of the Act

Number 8 of 2012 on the General Election of Councillors

People's Representative, Regional Representative Council, and the House of Representatives

The Regional People are not at odds with the 1945 Constitution A Second Amendment,

The applicant pleads to the Constitutional Court of Justice for the

draft of the sentence of Article 24 of the paragraph (4) and Article 27 of the paragraph (4) Invite Invite

The number 8 of the Year 2012 is augmented with new sentences.

13. Draft sentence of Article 24 paragraph (4) of the Act No. 8 of 2012 which

was read: " Further provisions regarding the constituency and

allocation of member seats of the provincial DPRD as referred to in paragraph

(1), paragraph (2), and verse (3) is set in KPU rules ". Now after

there is this request, a draft sentence of Article 24 paragraph (4) of the Act

No. 8 Year 2012 to: ook which

titled "Akal Akalan Region Election" in the word

introduction of the vii page in paragraph 3 of

http://www.watchindonesia.org/Buecher/Akal-Akalan.pdf

7. A copy of the section related to the subject

test for the material testing

8. The Court of Justice of the Constitutional Court Number

06 /PMK/2005. Article 3 of the letter a, Article 4 of the paragraph (2). Article 5

paragraph (1) and paragraph (2). Section 6 of the paragraph (3) of letters a, letter b

and the letter c. Article 13 of the paragraph (1) hurup g, Article 14, Article

19, and Article 20.

9. Photocopy of the Population Card on Hadi's name

Setiadi.

4 Evidence P-4 Photocopy Makalah Method Or Princip Formation

Election area under Law Number 12

Year 2003 on Election Member of the Board

People's Representative, Regional Representative Council, and Council

Regional People's Representative and Number 8 Act

In 2012 about the Board of Councillors

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

The Regional People's Representative

15

[2.3] weighed that to shorten the description in this ruling,

everything that happened in the trial was quite appointed in the news of the event

the trial, which is one unitary one

this verdict;

3. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

[3.1] Draw that the subject of the applicant is testing

constitutionality of Article 24 of the paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4) Act Number

8 Year 2012 concerning the General Election of the Board Member People's Representative,

Regional Representative Council, and the Regional People's Representative Council (State Sheet 2012 2012 Number 117, Additional Gazette

Republic of Indonesia Number 5316, subsequently called UU 8/2012) against

The Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 (next called UUD 1945);

[3.2] A draw that before considering the legal position

(legal standing) the applicant and the subject matter, the Constitutional Court

(subsequently called the Court) would first consider the The Court's authority to prosecute a quo;

Constitutional authority

[3.3] weighing that under the provisions of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution

and Article 10 of the paragraph (1) letter of the Law Number 24 Year 2003 on the Constitutional Court as it has been amended by Act Number

8 Years 2011 on Changes to the Law No. 24 Year 2003

on the Constitutional Court (Sheet State Republic Of Indonesia Year 2011 Number 70, Additional Leaf of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5226, next abbreviated Act MK) juncto Section 29 paragraph (1) letter a Act

Number 48 Year 2009 on the Power of Justice (Indonesian Republic of Indonesia 2009 Number 157, Additional State Sheet

Republic of Indonesia Number 5076), Court authorized to prosecute at level

first and last of which the verdict is final to test the Invite-Invite against the 1945 Constitution;

[3.4] In the draw that the applicant is testing

the constitutionality of the Act in casu of Article 24 of the paragraph (4) and Article 27 of the paragraph (4)

16

Act 8/2012 against UUD 1945 which became one of the Court's authority, so the Court of Justice for prosecuting a quo;

[3.5] weighed that before considering further pleas

The applicant, the Court needs to cite Article 54 of the MK Act stating, " The Constitutional Court may request the captions and/or meeting treatises

with regard to the application being examined to the Assembly

The Consultative Assembly, House, Regional Representative Council, and/or the President"

in conducting testing of an Act. In other words,

The court may request or not to request the captions and/or meeting treatises with respect to the application being examined to the Assembly

The Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, the House of Representatives. The area,

and/or the President, depends on the urgency and relevance. Due to legal issues and the "a quo plea" clearly, the Court viewed

there was no urgency and relevance for asking for the information and/or treatise

meeting of the People's Consultative Assembly, the People's Representative Council, The Regional Representative Council, and/or the President, so the Court directly broke the a quo;

[3.6] weighed that before considering the legal position

(legal standing) the petitioner to apply for a request. a quo and a staple

plea, the Court first will considering about

the applicant's request, as follows:

[3.7] A draw that in its request, the applicant is postulate:

1. Regarding the constituency (dapil) the applicant has compiled a paper titled "The Method Or Principles of the Establishment of Elections Based On the Invite-

Invite Number 12 Year 2003 and Act Number 8 of 2012".

In the paper the applicant has made and developed a mathematical approach to the formation of a dapil. Intent and

the aim of the approach is to direct members of the KPU and KPUD

to be obedient to the election principle (effective and efficient) especially in the attitude of honesty and justice in making the rules and shaping

dapil candidate members of the Provincial and District Council/City.

2. The applicant's paper will be beneficial to the public, participants and supervisors of the Election, as the public, participants and supervisors of the Election can

directly oversee the formation of its dapills openly and

17

is transparent so that in the event the results of the test results are found

indications of an aberration, the results of this dapilnya will be more easily corrected. In addition, the contents of the paper will be closely related

with a mandatory state obligation, in terms of prevention

alleged criminal bribery in the process of forming a candidate for the Provincial Assembly and the Province of Representatives. District/City. If the contents of the applicant 's paper

this is not used, the applicant is concerned that the country' s obligations

as it means it will not be accommodated into Section 24 of the paragraph (4) and Article 27 paragraph (4) Act Number 8 of the Year 2012.

3. According to the applicant, the forming of the Act has set a double standard in providing policy options (legal policy) in the provisions

Article 24 of the paragraph (4) and Section 27 paragraph (4) Act Number 8 of the Year 2012,

that is in one The sides, the KPU in making provisions regarding the dapil and allocation

seats can be interpreted that the formation of the dapil and the determination of seat allocations could be made using a regulation. On the other hand, the KPU in

makes provisions regarding the dapil and the allocation of seats can be interpreted that

the formation of the dapil and the determination of the seat allocation must be made using a methodology and the settings are handed over to the The PU.

4. Based on the above reason, the provisions of Section 24 of the paragraph (4) of the Law No. 8 of 2012 which originally stated " Further provisions regarding the constituency and the allocation of seats of the provincial DPRD

as intended on verse (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) is set in

regulatory KPU ", be" Further terms