Key Benefits:
VERDICT Number 13 /PUU-VII/2009
FOR JUSTICE BASED ON THE DIVINITY OF THE ALMIGHTY
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
[1.1] Which examines, prosecuting, and severing the case constitution on
first and last level, dropping a ruling in case of a plea
Testing Act No. 12 of 2008 on the Second Amendment
Act No. 32 of 2004 on Local Government against
The Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia Year of 1945, submitted
by:
[1.2] Y. Noto Sugiatmo Simohartono, Indonesian citizen, job
wiraswasta, South Highway address Number 24 Slawi, and Sidomukti Road
Gang 17 Number 13 Pekalongan, Telephone (0285) 412723;
Next is referred to as ------------------------------------------------------------ applicant;
[1.3] Reading a request from the applicant;
Hearing the caption from the applicant;
2. SITTING LAWSUIT
[2.1] A draw that the applicant has applied with
a letter of petition is dated February 6, 2009, which is later listed
The panel of the Constitutional Court (subsequently called Kepaniteraan) Court)
on Friday, February 20, 2009 with the registration case Number
13 /PUU-VII/2009, which was corrected and accepted in the Court of Justice
on March 25, 2009, outlining things as following:
2
I. Jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia
1. That Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945 states:
" The Constitutional Court is authorized to judge at the rate of the fight and last
whose verdict is final to test the Act against
the Basic Law of 1945; rnernutus The territorial dispute
the state whose authority is granted by the Basic Law, dissolves
the widening of the political party, and severing the dispute about the election results
the general.
2. That further is set forth in Article 10 of the paragraph (1)
Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court
(subsequently called the Act of MK) which reads:
" Constitutional Court authorized to prosecute the first and last level
that the verdict is final for:
(a). Examining the Law on the State Basic Law
Republic of Indonesaia of 1945
(b). dst ......
3. That is because the object of the materiel testing materiel is a charge of the Act
Pemda of the Year 2008 against the 1945 Constitution, then based on the legal basis
and those above, the Constitutional Court authorized to do
materiel testing call
II. The Legal Standing (Legal Standing) Applicant
II. 1. That under the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1) of the Act of MK juncto Yurisprudence
The termination of the Constitutional Court with Number 006 /PUU-III/2005. The applicant
is an individual citizen of Indonesia whose constitutional right
granted/guaranteed by UUD 1945 has been harmed by the enactment of Article 107
paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and verse (8), section
in the Pemda Act which is molated material testing or at least
the potentiil will result in loss for the applicant;
The applicant is the party that considers the rights and/or authority
its constitutionality aggrieved by the enactment of Act Number 12
Year of 2008 Article 107 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7),
and verse (8), that is:
3
a. Individual citizens of Indonesia;
b. The unity of the legal community is adat.as long as it is still alive and appropriate
with the development of the community and the principle of the Unity State
The Republic of Indonesia that is set in Undang-Undang;
c. the public or private legal entity;
d. State Agency
II. 2. Article 18 paragraph (4) UUD 1945
Governor, regent, and mayor of rnasing-rnasing as head of government
regions, provinces, counties, or cities are democratically elected
The applicant in this case is as a personal matter as a voter
in Pilkada who happened to find "Selector a favorite number one
time directly korum 50% more";
Yang on the P-2 evidence tool: "Selector the President and Vice President is enough one
times directly corum", Sent by Mr. Amin Rais, Mother
Megawati, Mr SBY, Mr MPR, and submitted again as a proof of P-4
with the title " Simplification Cara Noto chooses a favorite number of enough one
times directly 50% more;
II. 3. That the applicant's position in this case is the individual that
cares for protection, submission, enforcement, and fulfillment of the right
human rights in Indonesia in accordance with Article 28I paragraph (4) of the Constitution 45 which
reads:
Protection, submission, enforcement and fulfillment of human rights
is the responsibility of the state, especially the government
II. 4. That as a form of such concern, the applicant refuses
on the Act No. 12 of 2008 Section 107 of the paragraph (2), paragraph
(3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and verse (8). Because the applicant
has found a one-time way for Pilkada, in which way,
that was in May 2002 and January 2008, once sent the books
and a patent letter to the President's Mother, Amin Rais, SBY, MPR.
For the 2002 President through Setneg and Chairman of the Party faction of the Party
in the House of Representatives in 2008;
4
-That the applicant as a citizen of Indonesia is his right to be guaranteed and
protected UUD 1945, currently and so on has the right to vote
in the Election, most notably Pilkada, i.e. in the Basic Law of 1945
Article 18 verses (4) that reads: " Governor, Regent, and Mayor of each-
respectively as head of provincial, county and municipal governments
democratically elected";
-That with the enactment of Act No. 12 of 2008
Section 107 of the paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and
paragraph (8), the applicant feels aggrieved, because of Section 107 of the Act
The number 12 of 2008 caused any voter including
The applicant for one object can 2 (two) times come to the polls, so
her social cost will be higher, For example, schools, factories, offices and
so can be off 2 (two) times, as the applicant and others
as voters contest the election.
III. "Materiel Testing"
III. 1. Section 107 of the paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and
paragraph (8) Act No. 12 of 2008 in conflict with the Constitution
1945 Article 28C paragraph (1), and paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (4), Section 31 of the paragraph (5),
and Article 33 of the paragraph (4).
III. 1.1 Section 107 of the Law No. 12 of 2008 contradictory
with Article 28C of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution;
paragraph (2)
If the terms as are referred to in paragraph (1), not
fulfilled, talon pair The Regional Head and Deputy Regional Head
which received a vote of more than 30% (thirty percent) of the amount
valid votes, the largest number of votes were stated
as the chosen couple.
Verse (3)
In terms of the potential couple the biggest vote is
as referred to in paragraph (2) there is more than one
the candidate pair whose votes are equal, the determination of the pair
the chosen candidate is done based on the wider acquisition region.
5
Verse (4)
If the provisions as referred to in paragraph (2) are not
fulfilled or no yng reaches 30% (thirty percent) of
The number of salt votes, the second round of the vote is performed. which is followed by
first winner and second winner.
paragraph (5)
If the first winner is referred to by paragraph (4)
get two prospective couples, the two candidates are entitled
follows the second round.
Verse (6)
If the first winner as in paragraph (4) is acquired three
the candidate pair or more, the first and second ranking
is done based on Wider voting territory.
Verse (7)
If the winner second as in paragraph (4) acquired more
of one candidate mate, its fulfillment is based on
The region of the wider vote.
Verse (8)
The prospective partner of the Regional Head and Vice Section Head
received the most votes in the second round, expressed as
candidate pair.
III.1.2 UUD 1945 Article 28C verse (1) which reads:
Everyone has the right to develop themselves. through fulfillment
its basic needs, entitled to get an education and obtaining
benefits from science and technology, art and culture in the sake of
improving the quality of his life and for the welfare of the faithful
man.
That as an adult Indonesian citizen has a right
choosing which is reflected in the 1945 Constitution Article 18 (4) which
reads: "The governor, regent and mayor respectively as
6
provincial, county, and municipal heads of government elected
democratic ".
Section 107 of the paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7),
and paragraph (8) Act Number 12 2008 if the pair
candidates more than two could reach 30% then so among them,
if not performed one more time alias the second stage.
With the discovery of the way Noto, that is 50% more then
Section 107 verses (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and
paragraph (8) contrary to UUD 1945 Article 28C paragraph (1).
III.1.3 UUD 1945 Article 28C paragraph (2) that reads:
Everyone has the right to advance itself in
championed its right collectively to build
society, nation and country. Contradictory 107 verses (2),
paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8);
That section 107 lacks the collectial right to
build the people of the nation and country, cause
is possible twice the stage for one Pilkada object, whereas
the new findings, namely cam Noto have been sent to the Government of the year
2002 and in 2008.
III.1.4 UUD 1945 Article 28I paragraph (4) that reads:
Protection, submission, enforcement, and fulfillment of rights
human is the responsibility of the state, especially the government.
III.1.5 UUD 1945 Article 31 verse (5) reads:
The government advances science and technology with
upholds the religious values and the nation's unity to
advance the civilization, as well as the well-being of the human race.
The way Noto is a new way, so it is a submission
fulfilment of rights Human rights are the responsibility of the state,
especially the government.
Act No. 12 of 2008 Article 107 verse (2), paragraph (3),
paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8), possibly
7
two stages for the one time Pilkada then undermade progress,
so contrary to the 1945 Constitution Article 28I verse (4).
III.1.5 UUD 1945 Article 33 verse (4) which reads:
The national economy is organized based on democracy
economics with principles of tokeness, fairness of justice,
sustainable, environmental insight, independence, as well as keeping
balance and progress and the national economic unity.
Act No. 12 of 2008 contradictory to the Constitution
1945 Article 33 paragraph (4), the way "Noto" chooses one time so, costs
his social enough once for one time Pilkada, for example office,
factory, school, workplace both formal and informal, e.g.;
unloading, angkot and others are only one-time off, whereas
those components are economic supporters
nationwide. One time the national economy
was exercised in an efficiency of justice. Under Article 107 (2),
paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8) Invite-
Invite Number 12 Year 2008 could be two stages for one Pilkada
means in conflict with Article 33 of the Article 33 verse (4).
That of the provisions of the article in the Constitution of 1945 at least the right
Constitutional applicants as Indonesian citizens are protected/
guaranteed by the constitution, namely:
A. Rights to better Education, and developing science
and technology
B. The right to work that is more efficient for justice
for example factories, schools, offices, formal job venues and
informally also could be a one-time holiday which is part of
the national economy.
The charge material Law Number 12 of 2008 which
contradictory to the 1945 Constitution
The provisions of Article 107 of the paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8)
Act No. 12 of 2008 it violated the rights
constitutional applicant -
8
1. Rights to better Education, and developing
benefits of science and technology.
2. The right to advance itself in the fight for rights
the collective establishes the people of the nation and the state.
3. Rights to the submission and fulfillment of human rights that should
be borne by the government.
4. The right to advance science and technology with
upholds the unity of the nation.
5. The right to work the more efficient that is in fairness
the national economy.
The offense looks clear to:
1. The applicant as a voter, was not given a chance to be educated
at the same time educating the better, as well as to
the development of science and technology, i.e. choosing Pilkada time
was once completed, when it was already submitted to the Head of State
and the House of Representatives on January 24, 2008, before its creation
Act No. 12 of the 2008 Act, in addition to
in May 2002 it was sent to President Megawati, Chairman of the MPR
Amin Rais, as well as the Another member.
2. The applicant as a voter was not given the opportunity to vote
one time more efficient and justice, do not take a public holiday
more than one time for an object of choice at Pilkada, so
the company where the applicant is work should also be off, so
reduce the national connotion, as well as others
like the applicant as an office voter is being cast, school,
and other places off, when those places are
part of the national economy progress, which is the way
Noto chooses numbers favorite enough to be one more direct 50% directly.
The way it has been sent to the President, MPR, 2002
and 2008 to the Speaker of the House, the President with the title
The simplification of the way Noto chooses a favorite number of enough Times
directly 50% more.
The simplification of the way Noto selets the favorite number one time
direct 50% more reads:
9
One way is a system consisting of a box box
empty where each empty box is located right next to
or under an Election participant image or a figure of 1, 2, 3, 4
and Next, where Voters are:
1. Writing images 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on each
the empty box corresponds to the respective favorite options-
each Election participant, the most favorite is No. 1 and
so on;
or
2. Paste the image off the digits of 1, 2, 3, 4 and
so on each empty box corresponds to
her favorite choice,
or
3. Paste the image of the selector to
blank boxes below the digits of 1, 2, 3, 4 (which
declares favorites) in accordance with her favorite choice. So there is
three ways that simplifies the Noto way; chosen which is
most appropriate; but the number one way (1) is the simplest.
In the way above, voters include the applicant as well
voters, come one Next time to the polls. It's already
that's finally going to be Number One. (The way it was written
in its own)
Every election, voters are more pleased to come to the polls one time
only, completion of it already, do n' t have to be twice. This is one of the causes
the person becomes Golput, if it has to come twice.
In the new way it is not difficult, because it only writes
or paste the image off the digits 1, 2, 3, 4 and
so on, or the image is off co-election participants, precisely
include improving public education; also one time
so being efficient, it also increases people to vote.
Why 50% more, not 30%
For the votes that got less from 30%, and lost, (certainly
more than one candidate), when in number, will be able to exceed winner,
(if the winner is less than 50% more). If they are
10
united, although corially defeated, remains alarming,
how if they were demo, this was a benchmark
why it should be 50% more. If 50% is more, the rest of the vote even if
united remains still lost, as it does not exceed 50%. So paragraph (2),
paragraph (3), and paragraph (4), is a unit with paragraph (5),
paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8) is also problematic, in addition to opinion
that 30% is less powerful even if the Act can
apply but it can divide the unity of the appropriate nation
with a section on the Basic Law of 1945.
Indeed this is a new way, but the new way is not difficult for
voters, for example write enough numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, so
not muluk, just Election Panitia is educated for more
be attitude honest.
In accordance with the Constitution of 1945:
Article 28C paragraph (1) which reads: " Everyone has the right
develop yourself through the fulfillment of its basic needs, entitled
gets an education and benefits from science
knowledge and technology, art and culture, in favor of improving the
the quality of his life and for the welfare of humanity".
Article 33 of the verse (4) which reads:" The national economy
is organized based on economic democracy with the principle
with co-justice, sustainable, insightful efficiency
environment, self-reliance, and by keeping balance
the progress and unity of the national economy ".
A new way of being the option, in Law Number 12
Year 2008 Section 107 (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6),
paragraph (7), and paragraph (8), underadd education and
benefits and science. knowledge and technology, too
voters are less likely to get justice efficiency.
For a more complete story is as follows:
11
Materiil testing is in the process of forming the Act
No. 12 of 2008:
January 2002 and continued in May 2002, Noto Sugiatmo
gives input on the existence of discovery, namely " The Way Noto
chose a favorite number of enough corum ", in the way
coblosan, (the details on the book are titled: Seleting the President and
Vice President is quite a 1 time corum), as well as the proof of delivery
the book to Government of Republic of Indonesia. That means that if it's a new, helpful, certainly someone who contacts me, but
no one asks; it's not worth the writing
it is, but it's because I'm not a taboo, none of it is
Think about it.
Date on January 24, 2008, before the Act
Number 12 of 2008, I notified a new way again
the enhanced, titled: The simplification of the way Noto
selected the favorite Number of enough directly 50% more, to
Government; the Republic of Indonesia (photocopy attached), also no
response at all, whereas the Act includes the Invite-
Invite Number 12 Year 2008 including Section 107 of the paragraph (2), paragraph (3),
paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8), passed by
The government of the Republic of Indonesia, meaning not thinking of writing in
above, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not need it, whereas this
a new education about Pemilukada.
Materiil testing the other:
This test is in the 1945 UUD pads Article 33 paragraph (4) which
reads:
"The national economy is held on the basis of democracy
economy by principle of togetherness, fairness efficiency,
continuous, insightful, self-reliance, as well as with
keeping The balance of progress and the unity of the national economy ".
The simplification of the" Noto " way of being used voters is quite a one
times directly 50% more, so Voters come to the polls one time
come completion already, just It's the committee that's got to work.
12
longer, i.e. counting several times generally two times in
different times;
With enough one to come, missing time only one time
for one object of choice as well as maintaining balance progress and
social economic unity;
This is what the social cost is one time, so the social cost
is lower, for example the factory is only one time off, the school holiday one
times and so forth, it is enough One time off for one object
election. Since choosing one time only then the spirit of some
groups of people are more excited, which were lazy to vote
to vote, thus reducing the white group
(Golput). Thus it is more efficient and justice;
Therefore, Section 107 of the paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5),
paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8) Act Number 12 of the Year
2008 in conflict with Article 33 (4) The paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, among which
reads, The national economy is held on top of
democracy with the principle of togetherness, the efficiency of justice,
continuous, insightful, self-reliance, and keeping
balance of progress and national economic unity ".
IV. Request
Based on the reasons above, the applicant pleads to
The Assembly of Justice of the Constitutional Court, please check and disconnect
a request for a material test as a following:
1. Grant the supplicant request;
2. Declaring that Act Number 12 of 2008 Section 107
paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8)
in conflict with the Basic Law of 1945 Section 28C paragraph (1) and
paragraph (2), Section 28I verse (4), Article 31 of the paragraph (5), and Article 33 of the paragraph (4);
3. State (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6),
paragraph (7), and paragraph (8) Section 107 of Law Number 12 of 2008
in question is not a binding legal force;
13
If the Assembly of Justice of the Constitutional Court argues in another, please give
a ruling that is fair.
[2.2] weighed that in order to strengthen the control, the applicant has
submitted a written proof tool that was assigned the P-1 to P-7, as
below:
1. Proof P-1: Photocopy Act No. 12 of 2008 on
Second Amendment to the Law No. 32 of 2004
about the Local Government;
2. Evidence P-2: Photocopy of the book's acceptance of the president and vice president
One direct corum, namely to Mr. Amien Rais,
Megawati and Yudhoyono as well as MPR;
3. Proof P-3: Photocopied collection receipts from the coverage of the headline
writing " simplification the way Noto chooses a favorite number
is a direct one time 50% more than the President and the House;
4. Proof P-4: Photocopied about simplification the way Noto chooses
The favorite number is fairly one time directly 50% more;
5. Proof P-5: The book with the title chooses the president and the vice president enough
one time directly corum;
6. Proof P-6: Figure how to simplification the "Noto" way;
7. Evidence P-7: The image of the evidence is 50% more;
[2.3] weighed that to shorten the description in this ruling,
everything that happened at the trial was quite appointed in the news of the event
the trial, which is one Unbreakable unity with
this verdict;
3. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
[3.1] weighed that the intent and purpose of the a quo is to
test the Section 107 of the paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph
(8) Act Number 12 Year 2008 about the Second Amendment
Act No. 32 of 2004 on Local Government
(subsequently called Act 12/2008) against the Country Basic Law
Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (subsequently called UUD 1945);
14
[3.2] Balanced That Before Entering The Subject, the Court
The Constitution (subsequently called the Court) first would
consider the Court's authority to examine, prosecute, and
disconnect a quo and legal position (legal standing) the applicant;
The authority of the Court
[3.3] weighing that under the provisions of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution
1945 and Article 10 of the paragraph (1) the letter of the Act Number 24 Year 2003
on the Constitutional Court (Republican Gazette) Indonesia Year 2003
Number 98, Additional Gazette Republic of Indonesia Number 4316,
further called Act MK) juncto Article 12 paragraph (1) letter a Act
Number 4 Year 2004 on Justice Power, Court authority
prosecues at first and last level of which the verdict is final to
test the Act against the Constitution of 1945;
[3.4] Draw that the applicant's plea is to test
the constitutionality the norm of Article 107 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (5), paragraph (5),
paragraph (7), and paragraph (s). (8) Act 12/2008 against the Constitution of 1945, which is one
the authority of the Court, so that by hence the Court of Justice to
examine, prosecute, and discontinue a quo;
The Occupation of Law (Legal Standing) The applicant
[3.5] weighed that under Article 51 of the paragraph (1) MK Act and
The explanation, which may apply for testing of the Act
against the Constitution of 1945 was those who considered the rights and/or the authority
of its constitutionality given by UUD 1945 is harmed by the expires an
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; or
d. state institutions;
15
Thus, the applicant in the Act testing against the UUD
1945 must explain and prove first:
a. The name of the supplicant is: "
. no constitutional rights and/or constitutional authority granted
by the Constitution of 1945 as a result of the enactment of the Act
is mohoned testing;
[3.6] The Court has also seen that the Court since the Putermination of the Law. The Constitutional Court
No. 006 /PUU-III/2005 dated May 31, 2005 and the Constitutional Court
Constitution Number 11 /PUU-V/2007 dated September 20, 2007, as well as the ruling-
subsequent ruling ruling that the loss of rights and/or authority
constitutional as referred to Article 51 paragraph (1) MK Act must be 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 are considered
aggrieved by the enactment of the testing Act;
c such constitutional losses must be specific (special) and actual or
At least a potential that according to reasonable reasoning can be confirmed
will occur;
d. (causal verband) link between the intended loss
and the expiring Act (s) of the testing;
e. It is possible that with the request of the request then
constitutional losses such as those postured will not or no longer occur;
[3.7] Draws That The Applicant entails the enactment of Article 107
paragraph (2), verse (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8) of Law 12/2008,
governing about the opening of the possibility of regional head elections
of one time for not achieving the votes of more than 50% or not
achieving more than 30% of the vote in the first round, will be done
second round election, which is ruled by harming the constitutional right
The applicant is set in Article 28C paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (4),
Article 31 of the paragraph (5), and Article 33 of the paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, the Court argued.
in prime facie the applicant as a Republican individual
16
Indonesia, qualified both on the existence of constitutional rights that
granted the Constitution of 1945, nor the causal relationship between its change to the right
the constitutionality by the enactment of the Act which was tested, so
therefore the applicant is assessed as having a legal standing (legal standing) for
submitting a a quo.
[3.8.] Draw that by the case the court is authorized to
check, prosecute, and disconnect the a quo and the applicant has
legal standing, then the next Court will consider the Subject
plea.
Subject
[3.9.] weighing that the subject matter submitted for
considered by the Court is the constitutionality of the norm in Section 107
paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), verse (7), and paragraph (8) Act 12/2008,
which reads as follows:
Verse (2):
" If the provisions as referred to in paragraph (1) are not met,
the prospective pair of regional heads and the deputy regional chiefs who obtained the vote
more than 30% (thirty percent) of the total number of valid votes, the pair that
The biggest vote was declared as the chosen candidate ".
Verse (3):
" In terms of the prospective couple the biggest vote as
referred to a paragraph (2) there is more than one candidate pair receiving
The vote is the same, the determination of the selected candidate is done based on territory
The wider acquisition ".
Verse (4):
" If the provisions as referred to in paragraph (2) are not met or not
there are 30% (thirty percent) of the number of valid votes, done
The second round selection, followed by the first winner and the second winner ".
Verse (5):
" If the first winner, as referred to as a verse (4) was acquired by two
the candidate pair, the two candidates are entitled to the second round ".
17
Verse (6):
"If the first winner as referred to by paragraph (4) is acquired three
the candidate pair or more, the first and second ranking is performed
by region more extensive votes ".
Verse (7):
" If the second winner as referred to a verse (4) is obtained
of one or more potential partners, the touch is based on the region
broader vote acquisition ".
Verse (8):
"A couple of regional headers and the regional vice chief who earned the vote
most in the second round, is declared the chosen couple".
That the applicant has found a method called "the way Noto" chooses one
times the round so, whose social cost is quite a one-time the general election
area/deputy head of the area, so office, factory, school, place work is good
formal and informal is only one time off, and therefore the economy
national is executed efficiency of justice; thus the provisions
by the applicant are considered to be contradictory, respectively with Article 28C
paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (4), Section 31 of the paragraph (5), and Article 33 of the paragraph (4)
Constitution of 1945, which reads as follows:
Article 28C paragraph (1):
" Everyone has the right to develop yourself through fulfillment of the need
base, entitled to education and obtain benefits of science
knowledge and technology, art and culture in favor of improving the quality
his life and for the welfare of mankind ".
Article 28C paragraph (2):
"Everyone has the right to advance itself in fighting for its right
collectively to build a society, nation and country".
Article 28I paragraph (4):
" Protection, submission, enforcement and human rights fulfillment is
State responsibility, especially government ".
18
Article 31 paragraph (5):
" The government advances science and technology by upholding
high religious values and the nation's unity to advance civilization, as well as
the welfare of the people human ".
Article 33 paragraph (4):
" The national economy is organized based on economic democracy
with the principle of togetherness, equanimate efficiency, sustainable, insightful
environment, self-reliance, and by maintaining balance progress and
national economic unity ".
[3.10] Stated that in support of his plea-control,
The applicant has submitted evidence of the P-1 evidence to the evidence
P-7, and neither filed any witnesses nor experts.
Court opinion
[3.11] A draw that the underlying problem should be considered and
is decided by the Court, regarding the substance of the discovery "Way Noto" to
conduct the general election of the regional head that allows the lavisage to be lacquated.
The selection of regional heads takes one round of gains for the
is set to be an election winner so that it can be avoided inefficiency,
since the holidays are required for only one day, whether it is concerning
the problem of the constitutionality of the norm set in Section 107 of the paragraph (2) to
with paragraph (8) of Act 12/2008;
[3.12] weighed that the applicant's constitutional norm for
tests the constitutionality of Article 107 of the paragraph (2) to the paragraph (8) Invite-
Invite Number 12 juncto Act Number 32 of the Year 2004 as
has been described above is Section 28C paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (4),
Article 31 of the paragraph (5), as well as Article 33 of the paragraph (4) of the Constitution of 1945, against which the Court
gives the following assessment:
1. It is true that the 1945 Constitution guarantees everyone's right to develop
self through fulfillment of its basic needs and the right to benefit
from science and technology, where the Government is obligated to
19
advance science and technology in order to improve
the quality of life and well-being of citizens and human beings;
2. The applicant 's concern in thinking of the nation' s concerns through the efforts
search methods and efficient ways in the implementation of the general election
regional head and regional deputy so the applicant succeeds
formulating the "Noto Way" That, according to the Court, has been
the embodiment of the right to advance itself in champing its rights
both individually and collectively to building the nation and
the state, benefiting from the sciences knowledge and technology, which
is protected by the constitution;
3. That would be but the discovery of the applicant referred to as "Cara Noto"
in the execution of the general election of the regional head and the deputy regional head
which the applicant himself referred to as a simple mathematical method,
has not been tested Academically and unproven in the field, through the process
testing its rightful body for it.
[3.13] A draw that the discovery "Noto's way" of the way of selection of the head
area and vice the head of the area that allows the winner
with only one round in the regional head selection, as
described in P-4 evidence, P-5 evidence, P-6 evidence, P-7 evidence, and P-7 evidence, are methods
elections that do not require reelection with the method
simple math as said, "if (n) is the number of candidates
selected, so that it must be a corum, then the selector must choose (n-1) times". In
the P-5 proof, the applicant outlines further that the method of implementation is
as following:
" The first thought of how it should be repeated has not been reached by a corum Again,
If you want to be truly democratic, the selector has to choose or follow again
In the sense it will grow closer to the corum, and then again so that
achieved the corum ... that is about time, when or how long will it take
to repeat the follow-up election? Unequivocal discoverers are repeated in
a "few seconds" period, meaning voters after selecting the first or
main option, then please select the next one in a few
seconds Then it's just a second. It means that after selecting/marking the mark
first option/main option, forwarded the next option " (page 8-9 proof P-5).
20
[3.14] A draw that the electoral method by "Noto means" as
is described in the plea and is supported by the evidence tools submitted
The applicant, according to the Court is blurred (obscuur), because next to the description
election method "Noto means" is not yet clear, then the submitted issue
has also not been able to be used as an alternative in the policy option that
is taken so that it is not yet usable as a measure in assessing
the problem of the constitutionality of the norm Article 107 (2), verse (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5),
paragraph (6), paragraph (7), and paragraph (8) Act 12/2008. This is due to
in case the "Noto means" can be proven to be true-quod
non-then it would be possible for the general election of the regional head/vice head of the region
The second round is the option The laws that are performed
based on the system considered correct until the time of the invite-
Invite a quo. As a scientific discovery, then the general election method
claimed to be an efficient applicant. because it is only one time
round, must first obtaining scientifically testing, which
is not a domain of the Court in testing of the Act against
Constitution of 1945. Without testing and acceptance of such methods, then "Noto's way"
in the general election of the regional head without such a scientific proof is not
could be a measure to determine if there is a more guaranteed way
efficiency compared to the way defined in the a quo Act;
[3.15] A draw that the electoral method set by an
The Act on the election of the regional head will be greatly dependent upon
Act-forming interpretation of Article 18 of the paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution,
whether the word "democratically" is defined as a direct election or is chosen
indirectly through representation (DPRD). If an election is conducted
directly then it is necessary for a particular method to
the execution of his election, so that the "way Noto" is proven to be true,
it is not by itself a must. constitutional for
used, because many other methods are already scientifically proven but
not necessarily an option as an Act charge matter. This
since the Act will only specify one of the various
alternative methods that are present and equally true. The choice of a method
election is the authority of the Act-forming. Anyway,
21
efficiency is not the only consideration to determine the method option
that will be used in the election;
[3.16] A draw that from the proposed evidence and evidence tools
as have been described above, the Court argued there is no
the conflict between Article 107 of the paragraph (2) to the paragraph (8) of the Act 12/2008
with the Constitution of 1945, so that therefore the applicant's request is assessed not
sufficient reason.
4. KONKLUSI
Based on the consideration of the facts and laws outlined
above, the Court concluded that:
[4.1] The court is authorized to prosecute the case a quo;
[4.2] The applicant has a position law (legal standing) for
applying for the case a quo;
[4.3] "Noto's way" is just one alternative method of selection of the various
other electoral methods that do not have to be an option loading materials
an Undang;
[4.4] The Inundation section testing by the applicant is not contradictory
with the 1945 Constitution.
5. AMAR RULING
Based on the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia Year
1945 and given Article 56 of the paragraph (5) Act No. 24 of 2003
on the Constitutional Court (Indonesian Republic of Indonesia Year 2003
Number 98, Additional State Sheet Republic Of Indonesia Number 4316);
Prosecute:
Declare The Applicant was rejected for the whole.
It was decided at the Judge's Consultative Meeting by eight
Judge The Constitution on Thursday the thirty-month April year of the two thousand
nine and spoken in the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court is open to
22
general on this day, Tuesday the fifth of May of the year two thousand nine by
the nine Constitutional Judges, the Moh. Mahfud MD., as the Chairman, Abdul Mukthie Fadjar, Maruarar Siahaan, Maria Farida Indrati, Achmad
Sodiki, M. Akil Mochtar, Harjono, M. Arsyad Sanusi, and Muhammad Alim, respectively-
respectively as Members, with the assisted by Cholidin Nasir as Panitera
The replacement, as well as being attended by the applicant, the Government or the representing, and
the House of Representatives or the representing.
CHAIRMAN,
ttd.
Moh. -Mahfud MD.
MEMBERS,
ttd. td Abdul Mukthie Fadjar
ttd. Maruarar Siahaan
ttd. Maria Farida Indrati
ttd. Achmad Sodiki
Ttttd. M. Akil Mochtar
ttd. Harjono
ttd. M. Arsyad Sanusi
ttd. Muhammad alim
REPLACEMENT PANITERA
ttd.
Cholidin Nasir