laporan tahunan 2011 english

8/17/2019 Laporan Tahunan 2011 English

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/laporan-tahunan-2011-english 1/273

Upholdingthe Constitutional Democratic State

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

ANNUAL REPORTOf the Constitutional Court

2011



ANNUAL REPORT 2011

Upholding

the Constitutional Democratic State

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OFTHE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011ii

Visi

Tegaknya konstitusi dalam rangka

mewujudkan cita negara hukum

dan demokrasi demi kehidupan

kebangsaan dan kenegaraan yang

bermartabat.

Misi

1. Mewuj udkan Mahk amah

Konstitusi sebagai salah satu

pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman

yang modern dan terpercaya.

2. Membangun konstitusionalitasIndonesia dan budaya sadar

berkonstitusi.

VISI AND MISI



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 iii

menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar.•

memutus sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara yang kewenangannya•

diberikan oleh Undang-Undang Dasar.

memutus pembubaran partai politik.•

memutus perselisihan tentang hasil pemilihan umum; dan•

memeriksa, mengadili, dan memutus pendapat DPR bahwa Presiden•

dan/atau Wakil Presiden telah melakukan pelanggaran hukum berupa

pengkhianatan terhadap negara, korupsi, penyuapan, tindak pidana berat

lainnya, atau perbuatan tercela; dan/atau pendapat bahwa Presiden dan/

atau Wakil Presiden tidak lagi memenuhi syarat sebagai Presiden dan/atau

Wakil Presiden.

AUTHORITYAND OBLIGATION



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011iv

Upholding the Constitutional Democratic StateAnnual Report of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2011

Jakarta: Secretariat General and Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court, xxiv + 246 pages; 21 × 29.7 cm

First Print, January 2012

Publisher

Secretariat General and Registrar’s Of ce of the Constitutional Court

Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6 Jakarta 10110Telp. (62-21) 23529000, Fax. (62-21) 3520177

PO BOX 999 JKT 10000email: [email protected]

www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id

NOT FOR



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 v

Table of Contents

Footsteps

Message from the PublisherMessage from the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Profile of the Constitutional Court Justices

Introduction

Authority of the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Democratic State

• Constitutional Court Uphold the Constitutional Democratic State

• Case Management Statistics

Maintaining the Integrity of the Cons tu onal Court

• Accountability of the Judicial Institution

• Transparency of the Judicial Institution

• Bureaucratic Reform

Developing the Synergy of the Cons tu onal Court, Research, and Pancasila Educa on

• The Synergy of the Constitutional Court

• Strengthening Research and Development

• Education of Pancasila, Constitution, and Procedural Law on the Constitutional Court

Dynamics of the Cons tu onal Court

• Consolidation of the Constitutional Court Justices

• Internal Activities of the Constitutional Court Justices

• Development of the Support of General and Judicial Administration of the Constitutional Court

Financial Accountability

Closing

Appendices

Academic titles and military ranks are not included in Introduction up to Appendix of this book.

v

vi

xixiii

xv

1

4

5

47

82

83

94

106

120

121

136

155

176

177

180

191

194

200

202

TABLE OF CONTENTS



JANUARY 12The Constitutional Court granted the petition for

judicial review of Article 184 paragraph (4) of LawNo 27/2009. Quorum requirement of ¾ presenceand approval for the right to express opinionsof the People’s Legislative Assembly is declaredunconstitutional and without any binding effect bythe Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Courtalso stated that Law no. 6 Year 1954 concerningthe Stipulation of the right to Inquiry of the People’sLegislative Assembly has no binding effect.

JANUARY 13The Constitutional Court and PT INTI signed amemorandum of understanding on e-Perisalah andthe launching of e-procurement services.

JANUARY 10Coordination meeting of the Constitutional Court,

the Supreme Court, and the National Police of theRepublic of Indonesia agreed to confirm to thepublic that decisions of the Constitutional Courtcould not be heard by other courts.

JANUARY 13The Constitutional Court and the National Archives

of the Republic of Indonesia signed a memorandumof understanding on the management of statearchive/document salvage & preservation.

JANUARY 16-18Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud

MD and Vice Chief Justice of the ConstitutionalCourt Harjono attended the 2nd Congress of theWorld Conference on Constitutional Justice heldby the Venice Commission in cooperation with theFederal Supreme Court of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro,Brazil.

FOOTSTEPSOF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2011



JANUARY 30Employees of the Secretariat-General and Registrar’sOffice of the Constitutional Court signed the IntegrityPact and Performance Contract 2011.

FEBRUARY 24

The Constitutional Court decided that the age limitof a child who can be held for criminal liabilityshall be 12 years old. Minimum age limit of 12

years would provide more assurance of the rights ofchildren to growth, development and protection.

MAY 2In collaboration with Gadjah Mada University ofYogyakarta, the Constitutional Court held a NationalSeminar on “Implementation of Pancasila values inUpholding the Constitutionality of Indonesia”.

FEBRUARY 1Kasianur Sidauruk was inaugurated as Registrarof the Constitutional Court replacing Zainal ArifinHoesein who retired in 2010.

MARCH 4

Secretary General of the Constitutional Court JanedriM. Gaffar signed a memorandum of understandingwith the deans of the Faculties of Law of five stateuniversities i

MAY 24The Constitutional Court hosted the Meeting ofHeads of State Institutions meeting attended byPresident Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and sevenother leaders of the high state institutions. Themeeting agreed on the need for reform in all fields,especially in the fields of law and politics, as well asreinforced Pancasila.

FEBRUARY 11Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD, announced the result of the work ofHonorary Council of Justices (MKH) in relationto the findings of the Investigation Team of theConstitutional Court.

MARCH 7The Constitutional Court won the award ofPerformance Accountability of Central GovernmentInstitution 2010 from the Ministry of AdministrativeReform and Bureaucratic Reform.

MAY 27The Constitutional Court organized Quiz Competitionon the Comprehension of the 1945 Constitution forJunior High School of Sight-Disabled Students inIndonesia.

FEBRUARY 11M. Arsyad Sanusi resigned as constitutional court

justice.

APRIL 6Anwar Usman officially replaced M. Arsyad Sanusi

after having his oath taken as constitutional court justice at the State Palace, Jakarta. Anwar wasappointed by Presidential Decree No. 18/P Year 2011stipulated by the President on March 28, 2011.

JUNE 16The Constitutional Court revoked the articles

regulating Coastal Waters Concessions (HakPengusahaan Perairan Pesisir/HP3) in Law number27 of 2007 concerning the Management of CoastalAreas and Small Islands.

FEBRUARY 24The Constitutional Court granted the petition for

judicial review of Article 31 paragraph (4) of Law11/2008 concerning Electronic Information andTransactions. The Constitutional Court declared itinappropriate for the interception problem to beregulated in a Government Regulation and that itshall be regulated in a Law.

APRIL 13 A total of 20 employees were inaugurated as

structural officials of the Constitutional Court.

JUNE 20The Constitutional Court declared that the Substitute

Leader of the Corruption Eradication Commissionshall serve the office for 4 years.



JUNE 21Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD was accompanied by the Head ofthe Investigation Team of the Constitutional Court,Abdul Mukthie Fadjar, the Secretary General ofthe Constitutional Court Janedjri M. Gaffar andthe Registrar of the Constitutional Court KasianurSidauruk to attend the consultation meeting withthe Working Committee on General Election Mafia ofCommission II of the People’s Legislative Assemblyin relation to the reports on the forgery of theConstitutional Court’s letter.

JULY 11-13 The Constitutional Court held the InternationalSymposium of the Constitutional Court of theRepublic of Indonesia with the theme “ConstitutionalDemocratic State” which was attended by 23countries.

AUGUST 18

Moh. Mahfud MD was re-elected as Chief Justiceof the Constitutional Court for 2011 - 2014 period.The decision was made by voting followed by thenine Constitutional Court Justices in the PlenaryCourtroom of the Constitutional Court Building.

JUNE 24 The Constitutional Court obtained an UnqualifiedOpinion (WTP) from the Audit Board (BPK) for thefifth time for the Audit Result Report (LHP) 2010.

JULY 29

Achmad Edi Subiyanto, Eri Satria Pamungkasand Yunita Ramadhani pronounced their oath assubstitute Registrars of the Constitutional Court.

AUGUST 22

Elected Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court,Moh. Mahfud MD, pronounced the oath as the newChief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the2011 - 2014 period in the Plenary Courtroom of theConstitutional Court Building.

JUNE 27The Constitutional Court declared Article 108paragraph (1) of Law No 36 of 2009 concerningHealth inconsistent the 1945 Constitution. Thusthe village paramedics in Indonesia may servethe community just like doctors/pharmacists inemergency situations.

AUGUST 4The Constitutional Court declared Article 51paragraph (1a) of Law No. 2 Year 2011 concerningthe Amendment to Law No. 2 Year 2008 concerningPolitical Parties without any binding legal forceinsofar as it does not interpreted in such a waythat the verification of political parties formed afterthis Law shall be conducted no later than 2.5 yearsbefore the election day in order to participatefor the first time in the general election after therelevant political parties were was established andbecame legal entities.

AUGUST 23 The Constitutional Court declared the restrictionon establishment of institutions with the nameombudsman by any institution other than theOmbudsman of the Republic of Indonesia (ORI) inArticle 46 of Law Number 37 Year 2008 concerningORI and Article 1 sub-article 13 of Law No 25 Year2009 concerning Public Service inconsistent withArticle 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

JULY 1 Students of Gadjah Mada University (UGM) Yogyakarta

were the first winner of the Constitutional DebateCompetition for National Universities 2011. Thesecond winner was Andalas University (Unand) ofPadang, while the third winner was North SumatraUniversity (USU) of Medan.

AUGUST 8The Constitutional Court declared Article 1 sub-article 26 and sub-article 27, Article 65, Article 116

paragraph (3) and paragraph (4), as well as Article184 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph a of Law No. 8Year 1981 Concerning Criminal Procedure Codeinconsistent with the 1945 Constitution. Based onthe decision of the Constitutional Court, witnessesfor defense shall be examined.

AUGUST 24All employees of the Constitutional Court attended

the declaration of the zone of anti-corruptioncommitment and commitment to defend theUnqualified Opinion on the financial statements ofthe Constitutional Court.

JULY 4The Constitutional Court granted the petition of 14small political parties not to follow the verification

process as legal entities in order to participate inthe 2014 General Election.

AUGUST 12 The Constitutional Court held the Ceremony forthe Commemoration of the 8th Anniversary ofthe Constitutional Court in the front yard of theConstitutional Court Building, led by the Inspector ofthe Ceremony, the Chief Justice of the ConstitutionalCourt, Moh. Mahfud MD.

AUGUST 24The Constitutional Court in cooperation with the

Audit Board (BPK) launched the e-Audit.



SEPTEMBER 19 The Constitutional Court won the Highest StandardAchievement Award in Accounting and FinancialReporting of the Government Year 2011 from theMinistry of Finance.

OCTOBER 18The Constitutional Court nullified ten articles in the

judicial review of Law No. 8 Year 2011 concerningAmendment to Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerningthe Constitutional Court. The regulations related tothe injunction, the term of service of constitutionalcourt justices, membership of the Honorary Councilof Justices of the Constitutional Court, touchstoneof the judicial review of Law, procedures for theelection of the leaders of the Constitutional Courtthat restrict the authority and independence of theConstitutional Court and violate fair legal certaintywere declared unconstitutional and without anybinding legal force.

NOVEMBER 15 The Constitutional Court became the Winner of the1st Archive Unit Model of Year 2011 organized bythe National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia.

SEPTEMBER 29The Constitutional Court partly granted the petitionfor judicial review of Law Number 20 Year 2003concerning National Education System under the1945 Constitution. The word “may” become “must”for the state to assist with technical financing ineducational institutions without discrimination, bothpublic and private, especially in primary education inArticle 55 paragraph (4) of the National EducationSystem Law.

NOVEMBER 1

The Constitutional Court granted the judicial reviewof Law Number 36 Year 2009 concerning Healthpartly. The Constitutional Court removed the word‘may’ in Article 114 of the Health Law that wasdeemed confusing because the health warning ontobacco products could be given in two alternativesnamely in writing or drawing.

NOVEMBER 25The Constitutional Court, Ministry of Education andCulture, and Ministry of Religious Affairs granted theConstitution Awards to 9 Civic teachers (PKn) withAchievement at National Level 2011.

SEPTEMBER 29The Constitutional Court granted the petition forJudicial Review of Law No. 21/2001 that was

amended concerning Special Autonomy for PapuaProvince (Case No. 29/PUU-IX/2011) in its entirety.The consideration and approval of MRP concerningthe status of a person as an indigenous Papuan whowould be candidate for governor/vice governor shallbe based on the recognition and indigenous tribe inPapua from which the candidates of Governor/ViceGovernor concerned are.

NOVEMBER 2 The Constitutional Court passed a provisionalinjunction ordering the Independent ElectionCommission (KIP) of Aceh to re-open registration forcandidate pairs of Governor/Vice Governor, Regent/Vice Regent, and Mayor/Deputy Mayor.

NOVEMBER 29A total of 200 officers of the files and ranks of theCriminal Research Division of the National Police

of the Republic of Indonesia (Polri) from variousregions in Indonesia attended the Colloquium onEducation of Pancasila and Procedural Law of theConstitutional Court.

SEPTEMBER 29The Constitutional Court declared Article 109paragraph (3) of Law No. 5 Year 1986 most recentlyamended by Law no. 51 Year 2009 concerningState Administrative Court inconsistent with Article28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of theRepublic of Indonesia. With this, the copy of theDecision shall be delivered to the parties no laterthan 14 business days.

NOVEMBER 13The Faculty of Law of Andalas University Padang

won the All-Indonesia Moot Court Competition of theConstitutional Court for University Level 2011.

DECEMBER 1 Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD accompanied by Vice-Chief Justice ofthe Constitutional Court Ahmad Sodiki received thevisit of Kurt Carroll and Kelly Buchanan from theLaw Library of Congress Washington DC, UnitedStates of America.

OCTOBER 6The Constitutional Court granted the judicial reviewof Law no. 18 Year 2009 concerning Livestockand Animal Health partly. The Constitutional Courtdecided Article 58 paragraph (4) of Law No.18 Year2009 concerning Livestock and Animal Health withoutany binding legal effect throughout the phrase “...shall be accompanied by veterinary certificates andhalal certificate” in the event that is interpreted asrequiring halal certificate for animal products thatare surely not permitted.

NOVEMBER 14 - 18Training of Trainers of the Agent of Change of

the Gratification Control Program by the SecretariatGeneral and Registrar’s Office of the ConstitutionalCourt in cooperation with the Corruption EradicationCommission (KPK).

DECEMBER 8The Constitutional Court held the “Workshop onPancasila, the Constitution, and the ConstitutionalCourt’s Procedural Law” attended by 64 employeesof the Secretariat General and Registrar’s Office ofthe Constitutional Court.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011x

MESSAGE FROM

THE PUBLISHER



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 xi

MESSAGE FROM THE

PUBLISHER

The publication of annual report books

has become the regular activities

carried out since 2004, or one year

after the Constitutional Court was established.

In each publication, the Annual Report of

the Constitutional Court continues to change

and improve in presenting series of activities,

duties, and authorities taking place in the

Constitutional Court. The same goes with

the “Annual Report 2011” book that takesthe theme of “Upholding the Constitutional

democratic state“.

This “Annual Report 2011 of the Constitutional

Court” book is, in essence, the accountability

of the Constitutional Court which contains

the report on the performance of this state

institution throughout 2011. Some of them

cover the efforts of the Constitutional Court

in maintaining integrity, developing synergy,

dynamics, up to financial accountability.

The part which is not less important in this

book is the implementation of the authority

of hearing cases of Judicial Review of Law

(PUU) and Dispute over the Results of General

Election (PHPU) of the Regional Head, as

well as cases of Dispute over the Authority

of the State Institutions (SKLN). We present

some important decisions during 2011 at the

beginning without reducing the significance of

other decisions. This book has also updated

the profile of the constitutional court justices

who serve in 2011. In addition, various

data concerning the general and judicial

administration support of such as case study,

media coverage, publication of decisions, and

scientific activities are also presented in this

book.

For the Constitutional Court, this “Annual

Report 2011 of the Constitutional Court”

book becomes so important considering

Article 13 of Law no. 24/2003 concerning the

Constitutional Court. That Article provides that

the Constitutional Court shall publish periodicreports to the public openly concerning the

petitions registered, examined and decided

upon, and reports on the management of

financial and other administrative duties.

In conclusion, we would like to thank Chief

Justice of the Constitutional Court of the

Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Prof. Dr. Moh.

Mahfud MD, S.H. who has been pleased to

deliver a message. Not to forget, we also

would like to thank all parties who contributed

to the preparation of this book for their hard

work in making this book reach the hands of

the readers.

We hope that the book which is distributed

free of charge to various groups can be

beneficial.

Jakarta, December 31, 2011

Secretary General of the Constitutional

Court,

Janedjri M. Gaffar



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011xiv

MESSAGE FROMTHE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 xv

MESSAGE FROM

THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

In accordance with the principle of people’ssovereignty carried out according to theConstitution, any authority given by the

Constitution to a state institution comes fromthe highest sovereignty held by the people.Therefore, each institution has the obligationto account for the implementation of thatauthority to the people.

One of the forms of that accountability isto provide information on the performance

of the state institution, from the qualitativeand quantitative aspects, including theimplementation of the authority, organizationalactivities and development, human resourcemanagement as well as budget management.That accountability is also a form oftransparency to prevent abuse of authorityand to allow for control by the publicaccording to the principle of clean andauthoritative government.

Throughout 2011 there were manyimportant events taking place in relationto the implementation of authority of theConstitutional Court. Events that become partof the routines were hearings for cases ofJudicial Review of Law (PUU) and Disputeover the Results of General Election (PHPU)of Regional Head as well as cases of Disputeover Authority of the State Institutions (SKLN).In hearing such constitutional cases, theConstitutional Court has played a role inupholding a constitutional democratic statein accordance with the rules outlined in the1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Just recording some of the decisions passed,

in 2011, the Constitutional Court granted thepetition for judicial review of Law No. 8 Year2011 concerning Amendment to Law No.24Year 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court.The provision on the prohibition from passingultra petita decisions, prohibition from usinglaws as the basis for legal consideration,that the People’s Legislative Assembly andthe President would follow up the decisionsof the Constitutional Court if necessary,procedures for electing the leader of theConstitutional Court with “one meeting andone package”, membership of the HonoraryCouncil of Justices of the ConstitutionalCourt with the inclusion of the elements

of the People’s Legislative Assembly, theGovernment and Supreme Court justices, andother provisions were declared unconstitutionaland not binding. Moreover, the ConstitutionalCourt granted the judicial review of theconstitutionality of the Law No. 18 Year 2004concerning Plantation filed by the farmers.The decision was expected to end thecriminalization of farmers due to the legaluncertainty of these articles. In relation tothe cases of the Dispute over the Resultsof General Election of the Regional Head,for several times the Constitutional Courtalso granted the petitions with breakthroughinjunctions that considered the quality andstage of violations of the General Election ofRegional Head still prevalent in many areas.

Besides hearings, one of the highlightedactivities in 2011 was the InternationalSymposium to welcome the 8th anniversaryof the Constitutional Court. The symposiumentitled “Constitutional Democratic State” wasattended by 23 countries which discussed

three relatively important sub-themes. Thefirst was the role of the Constitutional Courtand Similar Institutions in Strengthening thePrinciples of Democracy. The second wasDemocratization in the Lawmaking Process. Thelast sub-theme was the mechanism of Checksand Balances among the State Institutions.

In addition, to maintain the continuity ofthe program held in the previous year of2010, the Constitutional Court also conductedvarious activities to uphold the integrityof the institution, the development andstrengthening of institutional capacity, as well

as to encourage the growth and developmentof the culture of constitutional awareness.

Hopefully, the Annual Report 2011 of theConstitutional Court Book becomes a sourceof information that can be accessed by theentire community, as well as a mirror forthe Constitutional Court in order to workbetter in the future.

Jakarta, December 31, 2011

Prof. Dr. Moh. Mahfud MD., S.H.



ProflHakim Konstitusi



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 xvii

Mohammad Mahfud MD was bornin Omben District, Sampang, Madura, on

May 13, 1957. In addition to his formaleducation at schools, since childhood hehad been educated about the religion ofIslam in the mosque and madrasah diniyyah .Graduated from Elementary School, he wentto State Religion Teacher Education (PGA) inPamekasan. In 1974, he elected to continuehis study at the State Islamic Judge Education(PHIN), a leading vocational school ownedby the Department of Religious Affairs inYogyakarta.

Graduated from PHIN, in 1978, Mahfudcontinued his education to the Faculty ofLaw, Islamic University of Indonesia (UII).At the same time he also studied atArabic Literature Department of the Facultyof Literature and Culture of Gadjah MadaUniversity (UGM) in Yogyakarta. At the Facultyof Law, Mahfud majored in ConstitutionalLaw. Since college he was actively writingin public newspapers.

Graduated from the Faculty of Lawin 1983, Mahfud worked as a lecturer athis alma mater with the status of civilservant (PNS). With the scholarship of UII hecontinued his postgraduate education at the

Ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi

Prof. Dr. Moh. Mahfud MD, S.H.

Political Science studies of UGM Yogyakarta.His doctoral degree was also obtained from

UGM with a deepening of the constitutionallaw science in only 2 years and 8 months.His promoters, Prof. Moeljarto Tjokrowinoto,Prof. Maria SW Sumardjono, and Prof. AffanGaffar, sent Mahfud to Columbia University ofNew York and Northern Illinois University ofDeKalb, United States, to conduct a literaturestudy on politics and the law for one year.He was confirmed as a professor, 12 yearssince he had served as a lecturer of UII,at the age of 41 years.

In addition to actively teaching, Mahfudhad become the Minister of Defense, theMinister of Justice and Human Rights,as well as a member of the People’sLegislative Assembly. He was inauguratedas a constitutional court justice on April 1,2008 to replace Constitutional Court JusticeAchmad Roestandi upon the recommendationof the People’s Legislative Assembly. OnAugust 19, 2008, he was elected as ChiefJustice of the Constitutional Court for theperiod of 2008-2011. Three years later, hewas re-elected to lead the ConstitutionalCourt for the second time.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011xviii

Prof. Dr. H. Achmad Sodiki was born

in Blitar on November 11, 1944. He was a

professor of Law in the Faculty of Law of the

Brawijaya University of Malang with expertise

in the Agrarian Law, Philosophy of Law and

Theory of Law. Fields of science that he

took care of were agrarian law, history of

the development of property rights, agrarian

politics, and philosophy of law.

Sodiki finished his undergraduate

education at Brawijaya University in 1970. He

once attended Constitutional Law Training of

the Faculty of Law of Airlangga University in

1978. In addition, he also participated in the

Sandwich Program in Leiden, the Netherlands

in 1989. He achieved his doctorate of Law

Science in 1994 from Airlangga University,

Surabaya. Sodiki had also once attended

the National Resilience Institute Course in

2001.

As a lecturer, he used to serve as

Assistant Dean I of the Faculty of Law of

Brawijaya University in 1979 up to 1983.

Later, he became the Chairman of Master’s

Study Program of Law of the Faculty of Law

Vice Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court

Prof. Dr. H. Achmad Sodiki, S.H.

of Brawijaya University in 1997. Since 1998,

he became rector of the Islamic University

of Malang for two terms until 2006. At that

time, precisely in 2000, he achieved the title

of Professor of Law at Brawijaya University.

He was also active both as lecturer and as

promoter of doctoral dissertation at Brawijaya

University of Malang, Airlangga University of

Surabaya, Diponegoro University of Semarang,

Udayana University of Bali, and Mataram

University of Lombok. In addition, he was

also listed as a member of the Board of

Trustees of the National Land Management

Institute of Jogyakarta. In 2008, he was

elected as Chairman of the Cooperation

Board of Agrarian Research Center.

In 2004, Sodiki was elected as a

member of the Constitutional Commission.

He was sworn in as a constitutional court

justice for the period of 2008-2013 on

August 16, 2008 upon the recommendation

of the President. In January 2010, Sodiki

was elected and officially inaugurated as Vice

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 xix

Harjono was born in Nganjuk, EastJava, on March 31, 1948. After graduatingwith a junior scholar’s (sarjana muda) degreefrom the Faculty of Law, Airlangga University,Surabaya, he continued his education bytaking a bachelor of law degree at thesame university in 1977. In 1981, he finishedhis Master’ of Comparative Law Program atSouthern Methodist University in Dallas, UnitedStates. Harjono then returned to his almamater to take his doctorate degree in lawscience, in addition to working full time aseducator staff there.

His dedication to the field of law

science was realized by becoming a professorat various universities, such as the IslamicUniversity of Indonesia, Yogyakarta, SamRatulangi University (Manado), Islamic Universityof Malang, Sultan Agung Islamic Universityin Semarang, and Udayana University ofDenpasar. He also served as Dean of theFaculty of Law of Bangkalan University ofMadura. As a lecturer, he once won the titleof National Model Lecturer (1995).

Organizational activities that by Harjonoused to be involved in were, among others,

becoming an honorary member of the Center

Constitutional Court Justice

Dr. Harjono, S.H., MCL.

for Human Rights Studies, member of theNational Law Reform Consortium, and ViceChairman of the Constitutional Law/StateAdministration Law Teachers’ Associationof East Java. He was also a member ofthe Expert Team of the General Editor ofSurabaya Post Daily (1991-1993), the ExpertTeam of the Department of Justice in theFormulation of Citizenship Bill, and the ExpertTeam of Designers of the Regional Regulationof Surabaya City.

Before appointed to be a constitutionalcourt justice, Harjono was a member ofthe People’s Consultative Assembly from

the element of the Regional Representativesof East Java Province. In 2009 Harjonowas elected as Vice Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court proposed by People’sLegislative Assembly (DPR) to replace H.M.Laica Marzuki who retired, until the end ofthe period of the constitutional court justicesof the 2003-2008 period. This shadow puppetfan was re-elected to be a constitutionalcourt justice also as proposed by thePeople’s Legislative Assembly to replace JimlyAsshiddiqie who resigned.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011xx

Maria Farida Indrati was born in Solo,

June 14, 1949. She was the only woman

who became a constitutional court justice.

Previously, she was known as a professor in

the field of legislation science. She devoted

most of her life in campus. Maria earned

her law degree in 1975. She then continued

her study on Notary Education. In 1997,

she completed her post-graduate education

in law. In 2002, she achieved her doctorate

degree. All of her academic degrees were

obtained from University of Indonesia, where

she served as a lecturer.

To enrich her skills, Maria explored Legal

Drafting Education in Leiden, the Netherlands.

In addition, she studied Legislation Process

Education (Wetgevingsproces) at the Vrije

Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Furthermore, she also attended Legislative

Drafting Project Education at University of San

Francisco, School of Law Indonesia Program.

She also attended the Legislative Drafting

and The Residence Course in Legislative

Theory, Methodology and Techniques at the

Prof. Dr. Maria Farida Indrati, S.H., M.H.


Boston University School of Law Boston,

United States of America.

As an expert of legislation, she used to

serve as Chairperson of Legislation Division,

Chairperson of the Legislation Committee,

Association of the Educators of Constitutional

Law and State Administrative Law since 1999,

and Member of the Formulation Team and

Member of the Harmonization Team of the

Constitutional Commission of the People’s

Consultative Assembly (MPR) of Indonesia.

At the international level, she used

to be a member of the Board of Advisors,

International Consortium on Law and

Development (ICLAD) - Boston University

Program on Legislative Drafting for Democratic

Social Change. She was also a member of

the Legal Experts’ Team of the Department

of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia, as

an expert in the design and formulation of

laws and regulations.

Maria Farida received the mandate

as a constitutional court justice for the period

of 2008-2013 upon the recommendation of

the President of the Republic of Indonesia.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 xxi

Justice H.M. Akil Mochtar, who was born inPutussibau, West Kalimantan, on October 18, 1960,

started his career as an advocate from 1984 upto 1999. He was later elected as a member ofthe People’s Legislative Assembly for the period1999-2004. At that time he was elected as ViceChairman of Commission III of the People’s LegislativeAssembly in charge of Law, Legislation, Human Rightsand Security.

When he was a member of the People’sLegislative Assembly, this Youngest Constitutional CourtJustice often represented the People’s LegislativeAssembly as legal counsel at the hearings in theConstitutional Court. Meanwhile, as a member ofthe People’s Consultative Assembly, he became amember of the Ad Hoc Committee I of the People’sConsultative Assembly, and then became a member ofthe Ad Hoc Committee II of the People’s ConsultativeAssembly. He was also listed as a member of theWorking Team for the Dissemination of the Decisionsof the People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republicof Indonesia.

Akil’s organizational experience got sharpenedsince he became the Leader of the OSIS atMuhamadiyah high school of Pontianak. At that timehe also became the Chairman of the MuhamadiyahStudents’ Association of Pontianak, and then hebecame a member of the Islamic Students ofIndonesia. After that, he was elected as Chairmanof Muhamadiyah High School Alumni of Pontianak,Chairman of the Students’ Senate of the Faculty of

Law of the Panca Bhakti University of Pontianak. Asa former Commander of Battalion E of the Students’

Dr. H.M. Akil Mochtar, S.H., M.H.


Regiment at his alma mater, Akil was trusted to bethe Chairman of the Students’ Regiment Alumni of West

Kalimantan, in addition to Chairman of the Students’Alumni of Panca Bhakti University Pontianak.

Before becoming a Member of the People’sLegislative Assembly, Akil was the Vice Chairmanof the Level I Regional Representatives’ Council ofthe Golkar Party of West Kalimantan (1998-2003).In the lawyers’ organization, he was trusted to bethe Chairman of the Association of Indonesian LegalCounsel (IPHI) of West Kalimantan and the Secretaryof the Association of Indonesian Advocates (IKADIN)Pontianak Branch. Besides that, he was a memberof the Organization Advisory Council (MPO) of theCentral Executive Board (DPP) of Pemuda Pancasilaand member of the Indonesian Youth Council ofthe DPP of KNPI.

Akil also used to be a member of ExecutiveRegional Board of Muhamadiyah of West Kalimantan.Then, he became the Chairman of the Central ExecutiveBoard of the Youth Generation of Golkar Party. Atthe Hikmah Institute of the Central Administrators (PP)of Muhammaddiyah, he was listed as a member. Inthe field of sports he served as Chairman of theIndonesian Community Sports Federation (FOMI) ofWest Kalimantan (2006-2010) and General Chairmanof the Federasi Panjat Tebing Indonesia (FPTI) ofWest Kalimantan (2006-2009).

Akil Mochtar was elected as constitutionalcourt justice for the period 2008 - 2013 uponthe recommendation of the People’s Legislative

Assembly.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011xxii

Muhammad Alim, who was born in

Palopo on April 21, 1945, followed the

career path as a servant of the law since

graduating from Hassanuddin University,

Makassar, in 1974. At that time he became

a Civil Servant candidate in the High Court

of Ujung Pandang. When he was a child,

he went to Sekolah Rakyat Negeri (Public

Elementary School) of Batu Sitnaduk in 1958.

He then went to Public Junior High School

of Palopo. In 1965, and finished education at

the Public Senior High School of Palopo.

In 1980, he was appointed as a judge

in the District Court (PN) of Sinjai. With his

job as a judge, he moved to the District

Court of Poso, the District Court of Serui,

the District Court of Wamena, up to the

District Court of Surabaya. He was later

promoted as a judge in the High Court

(PT) of Jambi before he was transferred to

the High Court of DKI Jakarta.

Dr. H. Muhammad Alim, S.H., M.Hum.


While performing his duties as a

judge, Muhammad Alim finished his Master’s

Degree (S2) education at the Department of

Constitutional Law of the Islamic University of

Indonesia (UII), Yogyakarta, in 2001. In 2007

he achieved his doctorate degree in the field

of Constitutional Law also from UII.

He then obtained the position of Vice

Chairman of the High Court of Kendari. Shortly

afterwards, he was appointed as Chairman

of the High Court of South East Sulawesi.

That position closed his career as a judge

in the court of general jurisdiction before

having his oath taken by the President as

a constitutional court justice on June 26,

2008 based on the recommendation of the

Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia

to replace Constitutional Court Justices

Soedarsono who retired.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 xxiii

Drs. H. Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, S.H., M.Hum.


Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi pronounced his oath

as a constitutional court justice on January

7, 2010 to replace the Constitutional Court

Justice Maruarar Siahaan who retired. He was

a constitutional court justice recommended

by the Supreme Court, and had a strong

background of the Islamic law. He acquired

his expertise well because of his educational

background and experience as a judge in the

Religious Court.

He was born in Kendal on August 22,

1952 and earned his junior scholar (sarjana

muda) bachelor degree in sharia at SultanAgung Islamic University of Semarang in 1976.

He later obtained his bachelor degree of sharia

from the State Institute of Wali Songo Islamic

Religion of Semarang and a bachelor degree

of law from the Faculty of Law, Muhammadiyah

University of Yogyakarta in 1992. Then in 1996

he finished his Master’s (S-2) study of Law at

the Faculty of Law, Indonesia Islamic University

of Yogyakarta, and since 2008 he was listed

as a doctoral candidate of Constitutional Law

at Diponegoro University of Semarang.

Before being appointed as a Constitutional

Court Justice, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi served as

Vice Chairman of the High Religious Court of

Yogyakarta. He served in this position for two

years after he resigned as Registrar of the

Constitutional Court during 2003-2008. Earlier,

in 2001-2003, he served as judge of the

Religious High Court of DKI Jakarta as well as

the Vice Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

He had a lot of experiences as a

judge, where previously he traversed in the

world of teaching and became a lecturer

at several places. It was recorded that heused to serve as the Head of Sub-Division

of Appeal Registrar’s Office of the Religious

High Court of Surakarta (1982-1987), Judge of

the Religious Court of Semarang (1987), Vice

Chairman of the Religious Court of Semarang

(1990-1993), Vice Chairman of the Religious

Court of Salatiga (1994-1998), Chairman of

the Religious Court of Purwodadi (1998-1999),

and Judge of the High Religious Court of

Semarang (1999-2001).



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011xxiv

Anwar Usman was born in Bima on

December 31, 1956. Since graduating from

SDN 03 Sila, in 1969, he had to leave

his parents to continue his education at

Sekolah Pendidikan Guru Agama Negeri

(PGAN). After graduating from PGAN, in 1975,

he migrated to Jakarta. In the capital city,

he became a part-time teacher in Kalibaru

elementary school. During his time as a

teacher, Anwar continued his education to

earn a bachelor degree at the Faculty of

Law of the Islamic University of Jakarta and

graduated in 1984.

Anwar began his career as a judge

since 1986, when he was assigned as a

judge of the District Court in Atambua. In

1991, he was transferred to the District

Court of Lumajang up to 1997. Subsequently,

he was appointed as a registrar at the

Dr. Anwar Usman, S.H., M.H.


Supreme Court (MA). At first, he served as

Assistant to the Chief Justice since 1997.

In 2003, he was appointed to be Head of

Civil Service Bureau of the Supreme Court.

Without leaving his previous post, in 2005,

he was appointed as a Judge of the High

Court of Jakarta. Anwar Usman was once

trusted as the Head of the Litbang Diklat

Kumdil MARI in 2006 until he was finally

appointed as a constitutional court justice.

Anwar Usman replaced Constitutional

Court Justice Arsyad Sanusi who resigned on

March 2, 2011. He occupied the position of

constitutional court justice after having his

oath taken before President Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono at the State Palace, Jakarta

pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 18/P

Year 2011 dated March 28, 2011.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 xxv

Hamdan Zoelva was sworn in as aconstitutional court justice on January 7,

2010 to replace Vice Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court Abdul Mukthie Fadjarwho retired. Hamdan was trusted to be aconstitutional court justice based on therecommendation of the President of the Republicof Indonesia. In the law world, his name wasknown when actively practicing as an advocatesince 1987. In fact, the man who was born inBima City, West Nusa Tenggara, on June 21,1962 started his career as an extraordinarylecturer at several universities.

He spent his childhood in hishometown, Bima. After graduating from StateMadrasah Aliyah Saleko Bima (1981), he wentto Makassar for his education at the Facultyof Law of Hasanuddin University until heachieved his bachelor degree of InternationalLaw. He also used to study at the Facultyof Sharia of IAIN Makassar, but he did notfinish it (1981-1984). It also happened with hisstudy in the Master of Business Law, Facultyof Law, University of Pelita Harapan Jakarta(1998-2001). Later he achieved his master’sdegree as well as his doctoral degree inConstitutional Law from the Faculty of Lawof Padjadjaran University Bandung.

In 1999, he was elected to be amember of the People’s Legislative Assembly.While serving as a member of the People’sLegislative Assembly in 1999-2004, he wasappointed as Deputy Chairman of Commission

Dr. Hamdan Zoelva, S.H., M.H.


II, among others, in charge of legal matters.While serving as a member of the People’s

Consultative Assembly, he became a memberof the Ad Hoc Committee I of the WorkingCommittee of the People’s Consultative Assemblyon the Amendment to the 1945 Constitution.He was also trusted to be the Vice Chairmanof Commission A of the Annual Session ofthe People’s Consultative Assembly on theAmendment to the 1945 Constitution (2000).

Hamdan returned to his profession asan advocate after leaving Senayan in 2004.Simultaneously, he also became a special staffof the Minister of the Secretary of State ofthe Republic of Indonesia (2004-2007), andthen became a member of the Expert Teamof the Chairman of the People’s ConsultativeAssembly of the Republic of Indonesia, inrelation to the Study on the Amendment tothe 1945 Constitution (2008). At that time(2006-2008), Hamdan was also elected asGeneral Chairman of the Central ExecutiveBoard of the Crescent Star Party.

Until now he is still listed as theDeputy Chairman of the ASEAN Moslem YouthSecretariat, the position that he had occupiedsince 2002. In addition, he was also activeas a member of the Expert Council of theAssociation of Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals(ICMI). In between his works as a ConstitutionalCourt Justice, he took time to teach at theFaculty of Law, As-Syafi’yah Islamic Universityof Jakarta.



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011xxvi

IntroductionAuthority Of The Constitutional Court and

The Constitutional Democratic StateMaintaining the Integrity

of the Constitutional Court

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011 1

Developing The Synergy Of TheConstitutional Court, Research, And

Pancasila Education

Dynamics Of TheConstitutional Court

FinancialAccountability Closing

Indonesian Constitution adopts the principleof democracy (people’s sovereignty) as wellas nomocracy (rule of law) as expresslystated in Article 1 paragraph (2) andparagraph (3) of the 1945 Constitut ion (UUD1945). In a constitutional democratic state,democracy and nomocracy complementeach other. Democracy is selected bymany countries, including Indonesia whichhas abandoned authoritarianism because ademocratic values the principles of humanitymore, guarantees the principal interest ofthe citizen and prevents authoritarian power.

The Constitution is the highest politicalagreement which contains the ideals ofthe state, the objectives of democracy,as well as the objectives of law. Theconstitution serves as a guiding star andthe source of the effect of all regulationsin Indonesia. In the state administration,the main aspects of the implementation ofa constitutional democratic state are thearrangement of relationship among stateinstitutions, the legislation process and

judi cia l review. The establishment of theConstitutional Court (MK) has encouragedthe efforts for correcting the performanceof the governance system in the past bythe institution that can perform checksand balances of the power in the state,maintains and guards the constitution,

protects the constitutional rights of thecitizen, and guards democracy, as wellas resolves political and constitutionalproblems.

Throughout 2011, the ConstitutionalCourt (MK) endeavored to play the role

of guarding the constitutional democraticstate, especially in relation t o the functionsperformed, namely conducting judicialreview of Laws (UU), hearing Disputes overthe Authority of the State Institutions andresolving Disputes over the General ElectionResults, including Regional Head GeneralElection. Laws which are not i n line with theconstitution, in terms of their formulationor substance are automatically politicalproducts which are out of the track of thehighest political agreement. Subsequently,for general elections conducted in violationof regulations and the principles ofdemocracy, the Constitutional Court willpass decisions in accordance with the factsat the hearings with the injunctions beingin accordance with law and justice. Withthis role, the Constitutional Court guardsthe implementation of the General Elect ionsto proceed in a free and fair manner as aprerequisite of the constitutional democraticstate.

The 2011 Annual Report of theConstitutional Court has been prepared as



Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 20112




INTRODUCTION

a part of transparency and accountabilityof the Constitutional Court to Indonesianpeople. Every year, the ConstitutionalCourt always reports the track records ofthe implementation of its duties duringa whole year. In addition, this annualreport is the mandate of Law Number 8Year 2011 concerning Amendment to LawNumber 24 Year 2003 concerning theConstitutional Court. This report is begunwith introduction and in outline, this reportcovers six issues.

First, Authority of the Constitutional Courtand the Constitutional Democratic State.This section contains the Decisions ofthe Constitutional Court Upholding theConstitutional Democratic State and theStatistics of Case Handling. Throughout2011, the Constitutional Court performedits constitutional authorities in order touphold the constitutional democratic state.

Judicial Review of Law has been performedin order to uphold the principle of checksand balances, where every power must belimited including that of the legislator informulating laws that potentially violatethe constitution as the highest politicalagreement as well as law. Unresolved disputesover the authority of state institutionswere resolved by the Constitutional Courtas the mediating institution. In casesof Dispute over the Results of GeneralElection (PHPU) of Regional Head, the

Constitutional Court guards the democraticprocess that can potentially violate theprinciples of democratic general elections.We will present some important decisionsin addition to important issues relatedto Case Management Statistics 2011containing petition and case registration,case resolution, injunctions, settlementperiod, judicial review of laws, examinationand documentation of cases, etc. Thissection is the important mi rror for and thecontribution of the Constitutional Court in

relation to the decisions that have been

passed in solving the problems of thenation and the state of Indonesia.

Second, Maintaining the Integrity of theConstitutional Court. This section describesthe accountability and transparency of thecourt and the bureaucratic reform in theConstitutional Court. The important part hereis the Constitutional Court’s maintainingindependency as a judicial institution,

transparency in handling cases, andaccountability in any authority possessed.Various efforts and activities are, amongother things, building the ConstitutionalCourt judiciary based on Informationand Communication Technology (ICT),supervision and enforcement of the codeof conduct of both for the constitutional

justices and the employees, gratif ica tioncontrol, establishment of Complaint PostCenter and so forth. In addition, varioustransparency efforts and the Constitutional

Court’s efforts are presented to facilitatethe justice-seeking public and to open itselfto the public.

Third, Synergy of the ConstitutionalCourt. This section contains the role ofthe Constitutional Court in strengtheningdomestic cooperation and developinginternational cooperation. In 2010, theConstitutional Court entered into variousMemorandums of Understanding (MoU),domestic and foreign cooperation, as well

as various activities for strengthening thesynergy of the Constitutional Court withother state institutions and communityorganizations, both domestic and foreign.

Fourth, Strengthening Research andDevelopment. This section contains theoverview of research and study conductedby the Constitutional Court, the Center forConstitutional Studies (PKK), publication ofthe Constitutional Court’s Jurnal Konstitusiand center for constitutional study (PKK)-edition of the Jurnal Konstitusi, seminars,symposiums, seminars and workshops, FGD,





Pancasila Education



the Constitutional Court’s Library, LegalInformation Center (PIH) etc.

Fourth, Education of Pancasila, Constitution,and Procedural Law on the ConstitutionalCourt. This section contains an overview ofthe Constitutional Court’s efforts to buildthe constitutionality of Indonesia and theculture of constitutional awareness i n variousmedia, namely by media published by the

Constitutional Court such as the Literatureof Constitution, “Konstitusi” Magazine,Jurnal Konstitusi, leaflets, brochures, booksetc. In addition, other used are Talk Show,Constitution Awards, Constitution Week,Moot Court, Constitution Awards for CivicTeachers, and various visits by universitystudents/lecturers, etc.

Fifth, Dynamics of the Constitutional Court.Dynamics that occurred in the ConstitutionalCourt and internal activities of the

Constitutional Court related to constitutionalcourt justices, both the replacement of the justices and the replacement of the leader

of the Constitutional Court, and relatedto the dynamics of the Secretary-Generaland Registrar’s Office of the Constituti onalCourt of the Republic of Indonesia can bedescribed here.

Sixth, Financial Accountability. This sectiondescribes the Constitutional Court’s effortsto build an anti-corruption commitment anddetails the allocation and realization of

the 2009 budget. The Constitutional Courtonce again gained the achievement byobtaining Unqualified Opinion [WTP] for thefifth time and the best financ ial statementsthat encourage the Constitutional Court tomaintain the achievements gained and asthe contribution of the Constitutional Courtin building the anti-corruption culture.

Subsequently, the whole description isclosed in the closing section. This reportis accompanied by a list of tables of the

Constitutional Court‘s decisions throughout2011 to help the readers who need it atthe end of this appendix.




Pancasila Education




The state of Indonesia is a state that

based on law and democracy (Article

1 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3)

of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of

Indonesia). The combination of a rule of law

state and democratic state is a constitutional

democratic state, where the law established

must be based on the principles and

objectives as well as through the democratic

process. Law without democracy is only a

repressive means of power which will ignorethe interests of the people. Instead the law

also provides the framework and the guidelines

so that democracy does not ignore human

values. Democracy without guidelines of the

law will lead to anarchy.

The 1945 Constitution is the highest form

of agreement of the people that regulates

fundamental matters of the state so that

it becomes the highest consensus and a

common goal in the state of Indonesia. The

constitution becomes the basis, reference,

and the main reason in each activity of

the management of life of the nation, state,

and society. In the rule of law state which

upholds the supremacy of the constitution,

the state is not governed by a person or an

institution, but everyone is ruled by the law

with the constitution as the supreme law.

Democracy prevents tyranny and provides

more assurance of humanitarian principlesand allows for the growth of freedom and

protection of fundamental interests of citizens

and the existence of moral responsibility.

Every person may directly or indirectly,

determine what is good for himself/herself,

either by choosing or by participating in

making decisions concerned with the public

interest. In addition, every public office has

a responsibility morally, politically and legally,

and there is a mutual control so as to

avoid abuse of power.

Decisions of the Constitutional CourtUphold the Constitutional DemocraticState

Nine constitutional court justices held a PlenarySession of the ConstitutionalCourt. Through itsconstitutional role, theConstitutional Court upholdsthe constitutional democraticstate.

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/ Prana Patrayoga







AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC STATE

However, the history of the implementation

of democracy will continue to grow in

facing the challenges faced by the nation

and state. Including Indonesia, although the

democratic process and institutions have

been established, efforts to encourage the

strengthening of democratic institutions are

essential. Efforts which are not less urgent

in strengthening constitutional democratic

state are increasing people’s participation

in any public decision-making, preference ofthe people’s interest which underlies every

decision concerned with the public, increasing

equal opportunity for the people, increasing

the degree of people’s relationship with their

representatives by means of representative

democracy, and instilling the ideas and values

of democracy and democratic political culture

by strengthening civil society.

In state administration, the Constitutional

Court (MK) is one of the important organsborn after the reform to encourage and to

guard constitutional democracy, so that the

synergy between democracy and nomocracy

can be reached. With the authority possessed,

throughout 2011, the Constitutional Court

played the role in guarding the goal of

the state, Pancasila as philosophical basis

of the state, constitutional rights of citizens,

maintaining democracy and limiting and

keeping power in the state within the corridors

of the constitution and laws.

The authority of the Constitutional Court

to hear, whose decision is final to conduct

judicial review of the constitutionality of laws

was a radical change in the Indonesian

state administration system. A law established

by the representatives of the people may

violate the noble agreement of the founding

fathers in the Constitution, and may also

be inconsistent with Pancasila as the basic

philosophy of the state (filosofische grondslag),

view of life (Weltanschauung), and the idealsof law (rechts idea). Throughout 2011, the

Iskandar Sonhaji, BambangWidjojanto, Roder Nababan danN.Horas Maruli Tua pada sidang

Perselisihan Hasil PemilihanUmum Kepada Daerah (PHPU

Kada) Tapanuli Tengah.

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/Ganie




Pancasila Education




Constitutional Court played the role of

correcting the course of government and

guarding the growth of the principle of

checks and balances in state administration.

In the journey of the nation, a law may

not prove to be responsive, and may even

obstruct and violate the ideals of the highest

political agreement of the people in the

constitution.

Democratization of the formulation of Law

becomes one of the important aspects of

constitutional democracy, because in addition

to bringing changes to and progress of

the nation, the law, with obligations of and

restrictions on citizens, can also be a rule

that violates citizens’ constitutional rights

protected by the constitution. In addition,

without a democratic process, the Law will

take away people’s interest and will benefit

some people and groups. The interest ofthe people becomes the source of every

decision which is much more important in

addition to democratic procedures that must

be exceeded.

Decisions of Judicial Reviewof Law

The Constitutional Court in 2011 with its

constitutional authority kept the products

of law in accordance with the constitution,namely that the formulation and the material

were to be consistent with the goals of

law and democracy in the Preamble to and

the Corpus of the 1945 Constitution. In a

democracy, the Constitutional Court plays the

role of serving as the forum for resolving

constitutionality issues with the authority to

declare a law unconstitutional and without

any binding legal force or for formulating

laws in the negative sense of the word

One of the petitioners inthe Judicial Review ofthe amendment to theConstitutional Court Law,Saldi Isra, gave an explanationrelated to the substance of thepetition before the panel ofconstitutional court justices,5/8)

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Fitri

Yuliana]









(negative legislator). The Constitutional Court

also strengthens the principles of the rule

of law state by upholding the supremacy

of law, providing equality before the law

and upholding the constitution based on

human rights.

Indirectly, conducting judicial review of the

constitutionality of the Law, in addition to

providing control among the state institutions,will further encourage the democratization

process in the formulation of Laws. The

People’s Legislative Assembly and the

Government are expected to more carefully

consider not only a democratic mechanism

but also the substance of the Law based

on the values brought democracy and

the constitution. Moreover, citizens will have

greater access to justice in addition to

other legislators to allow for the fulfillment

of the needs and interests with moreresponsive laws.

In 2011, 86 cases of judicial review of

Law were reviewed and 59 cases were still

in the process in 2010. Of the total, the

Constitutional Court had passed its decisions

upon 94 cases (65%), while 51 cases or 35

percent of the cases had not been resolved

and decided upon. Out of 65 percent of

PUU cases that had been decided upon, the

Constitutional Court granted as many as 21

cases (22%), rejected 29 cases (31%) and

could not accept 35 cases (37%), and 9

cases (10%) were withdrawn.

Constitutional Ultra Petita

Of the cases decided upon and granted by

the Constitutional Court, namely among others

judicial review related to the Constitutional

Court, both the judicial review of the Law No.

24 Year 2003 concerning the Constitutional

Court and the judicial review of Law No.

8/2011 concerning the Amendment to the Law

No.24 Year 2003 concerning the Constitutional

Court and other laws related to the authority

of this constitutional court institution. The

important materials of the petition were

Article 45A and Article 57 Paragraph (2a) of

Law 8/2011 stipulating that the decision of

the Constitutional Court cannot include anyinjunction not requested for by the petitioner

or exceed the petitioner’s request, except for

certain matters relating to the substance of

the petition.

With respect to this petition, the Constitutional

Court passed an important decision in the

case No. 48/PUU-IX/2011 which has a big

impact not only on the institution of the

Constitutional Court, but also on the continuity

of the implementation of the constitutionalauthority of this institution, for the fulfillment

of substantive justice and democracy to

be upheld and furthermore that the judicial

review considered not only the individual filing

the petition, but also public interest to be

protected. The decision of the Constitutional

Court was binding not only to the parties in

the case, but also to everyone ( erga omnes ).

Ultra petita restriction itself was based on the

decisions of the Supreme Court (MA) in civil

cases being allowed under certain conditions

for the sake of justice.

In the event that a Law applies only to the

parties in the case, then ultra petita restriction

was understandable and justified because the

freedom of individuals in civil cases is crucial.

In addition, a law is a single integrated system,

where a paragraph, article, section in the Law

or another Law are related to each other,

so that an unconstitutionality of any section




Pancasila Education




being the heart and the principle of a law

would automatically deprive other provisions

of their foundation. Whereas the event of the

birth of judicial review in the Supreme Court

of the United States in 1803 in the case of

Marbury vs. Madison , whose judgment was far

in excess of that being requested ( ultra petita ),

by the consideration that in performing his

constitutional duties, the justice should not be

tied within the cage of the Petitioner’s petition

based on the motivation of the individual’spersonal interests. Public interest required the

justices to perform their duties and functions

in guarding the constitution.

The more important issue is that the

Constitutional Court as a judicial institution

should open the access as widely as possible

to anyone (access to court and justice),

especially for the poor people. This means that

the parties filing a case in the Constitutional

Court are not required to be represented orthat their case be authorized to a proxy, and

automatically the potential weakness related to

the formality of the petition is likely to occur,

and the Constitutional Court serve the role of

giving justice, then the ultra petita decision

would be the demand and the obligation of

the Constitutional Court itself.

In the injunction related to the ultra petita

restriction, the Constitutional Court declared

Article 45A and Article 57 Paragraph (2a) of

Law no. 8 Year 2011 unconstitutional and

without any binding legal force.

Touchstone of the ConstitutionDelegation Law in Judicial Review

Furthermore, in the considerations of the

Constitutional Court on case No. 49/

PUU-IX/2011, that the prohibition for the

Constitutional Court to use other laws as

the basis for its legal considerations under

Article 50A of Law 8/2011 would reduce the

authority of the Constitutional Court as anindependent branch of judicial authority to

Muhamad Zainal Ari n,proxy of the Petitioner incase No. 48/PUU-IX/2011was giving an explanationto the Constitutional Courtat the hearing for thestatements of the expertspresented by the Petitioneron Thursday (22/9).

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/Ganie]









Maruarar Siahaan wasgiving his statement as an

expert in judicial reviewof the Amendment to theConstitutional Court Law

adjudicate in order to enforce law and justice.

In fact, as the interpreter of the Constitution

in reviewing a law, the Constitutional Court

shall explore legal values and sense of

justice existing in society based on the 1945

Constitution as the supreme fundamental law

or the Law as the elaboration of the 1945

Constitution.

The use of other laws as the basis for

legal considerations is, in fact, intended

to create legal certainty as provided for

in Article 28D paragraph (1) the 1945

Constitution. In practice, the decision of the

Constitutional Court related to judicial review,

the Constitutional Court never used a law

as the basis for its considerations, but in

certain petitions, the Constitutional Court had

to look at the entire law as an integrated

system which should not conflict with each

other. Meanwhile, in relation judicial review,

the Constitutional Court looked at the law

on the formulation of laws and the rules

of procedure of the People’s Legislative

Assembly as the elaboration of the 1945

Constitution which could be directly used or

considered as the standard or touchstonein judicial review.

The Constitutional Court in its decision

stated Article 50A of Law No. 8 Year

2011 is unconstitutional and has no

binding legal force.

Authority of the Constitutional Court tohear upon Disputes over the Results ofRegional Head General Elections

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/Ganie]




Pancasila Education




In early 2011, the Constitutional Court

reviewed the norms of the limits of authority

in hearing the case of dispute over the

results of regional head general election

in imposing sanctions for violations, in the

case related candidates for regional head

of West Kotawaringin. Although the petition

was rejected, this decision provided a

parameter for assessing its own power. In the

considerations of the decision No. 75/PPU-VIII/2010, the Constitutional Court declared

that its authority had come not only from

Article 106 paragraph (2) of Law Number 32

Year 2004 regarding Regional Government,

but also from Article 24C paragraph (1) of

the 1945 Constitution.

The definition of deciding upon disputes

over the “results” of general elections is

broader than deciding upon (the dispute

over) “vote count results” as intended by theLocal Government Law. Moreover, according

to some laws relating to general elections,

the definition of general election includes

processes from the phase of preparation,

execution and the final stage of the election

results. Vote count is just a part of the

final phase of general elections. If the

general election process is held in direct,

general, free, confidential, honest and just

manner, then the result may reflect the truth;

otherwise, if regional head general election is

not held in direct, general, free, confidential,

honest, and just, manner then the truth of

the result cannot be trusted.

In practice, there many violations, both

administrative and criminal, occurred in

the process before the stipulation of the

vote count results by the General Election

Commission/Provincial General Election

Commission/General Election Commission of

Regency/City that could not be legally resolved

by the general election organizer, so that

this dispute was brought to the Constitutional

Court. Thus, the legal consideration of the

Constitutional Court in Decision No. 45/

PHPU-D-VIII/2010, dated July 7, 2010, which

stated “.... whereas a decision over general

election results shall not just recalculate the

votes but it should also explore justice by

assessing and hearing the general electionprocess which could have affected the results

of the disputed vote count, so that the

violations, both criminal and administrative,

that have led to the dispute over the results

of a calculation must also assessed for

justice”. In addition, the Constitutional Court

has interpreted and provided a legal view as

described above (giving broad interpretation)

through its decision before and after Decision

Number 45/PHPU-D-VIII/2010, dated July 7,

2010. In this case, the Constitutional Court,following the previous views, is aimed at

upholding substantive justice, rather than

mere procedural justice.

Considering that the Constitutional Court

examines, hears and decides upon cases

not only based on the law an sich but it

also explores, follows and understands the

values of law and justice in existence in

the society in accordance with constitutional

values. The values of justice in question are

had existed prior to the decision (“.... to be

already existent before his decision”). The

Constitutional Court acts “as a declarer of

the community’s law”. Therefore, if an election

was held inconsistently with the principles of

constitution and legal values in existence in

society full of structured, systematic, massive

manipulations and intimidation, then such

elections had ignored the principles of the

constitution, especially the principle of direct,









general, free, confidential, honest, and just

general elections and public sense of justice,

so that it should be revoked. Consequently,

the parties that committing the violation

would be imposed with sanctions for such

actions. On the contrary, the interest of the

party not committing any violation should be

protected in accordance with the principle

of nemo ex alterius facto praegravari debet .

This means that one should not bear the

burden of losses due to the mistakes of

others.

The decision of judicial review of this

law had an important impact because the

considerations of this decision were used

as the basis for subsequent decisions of

the Constitutional Court in relation to the

competence to hear cases of dispute over

the results of regional head general election

in 2011 and subsequent decisions.

Three Categories of ViolationsRegional Head General Elections

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court in

its decision of case No. 75/PUU-VIII/2010

also formulated the jurisprudence related to

violations that could not or could cancel the

decision of the General Election Commission.

First, violations in the process that have no

effect or whose impact cannot be estimated

on the vote results of General election or

the General Election of Regional Head. The

examples are making banners, simulation

papers with logos, and visual aids that do

not comply with the procedures set out

in the laws and regulations. Violations of

this type are the domain of the general

court or administrative court. Therefore, the

Constitutional Court cannot make them the

basis for cancellation of vote count results

which have been stipulated by the General

Election Commission. Second, violations in

One of the petitionersin case No. 49/

PUUIX/2011, Yuliandri,was shaking hands with

the Representative of theGovernment, Mualimin,

after hearing for thepronouncement of the

decision which grantedthe judicial review of

the amendment to theConstitutional Court Law,

Tuesday (17/10).





Pancasila Education




the General Election or the Regional Head

General Election process which affects the

results of the General Election or the

Regional Head General Election such as

money politics, involvement of corrupt officials

or civil servants, alleged criminal actions

in General Election, etc. To the extent of

having significant influence, as they occur in

a structured, systematic and massive manner,

this type of violations may cancel the resultsof the General Election or the Regional Head

General Election. Third, the violations of the

requirements for becoming a candidate which

are principal and measurable in nature.

For example, the requirement that one was

never sentenced with any criminal sanction

of imprisonment and the requirement of

legitimacy to support independent candidates.

This type of violations can be used as the

basis for cancelling the results of General

Election or the Regional Head General Electionbecause some participants may not have

been eligible from the beginning.

These considerations become the parameters

for deciding upon subsequent cases of

dispute over the results of regional head

general election.

Immediate Execution of Decisions ofthe Constitutional Court

In relation to the implementation of norms,

Law No. 8 Year 2011 provides that if itis necessary to amend to the Law that

has been reviewed, the People’s Legislative

Assembly or the President shall immediately

follow up the decision of the Constitutional

Court according to laws and regulations.

The Constitutional Court’s decision is final

and binding generally ( erga omnes ) which

is self executing . The Constitutional Court’s

decision is the same as the Law which

has to be implemented by the state, all

citizens, and the existing stakeholders. Thenorm of Article 59 paragraph (2) of Law

8/2011 is not clear and it leads to legal

The Representatives ofthe Government andthe People’s LegislativeAssembly after the hearingof the judicial review ofthe amendment to theConstitutional Court Lawat the plenary courtroomof the ConstitutionalCourt, Friday (16/9).










uncertainty because the People’s Legislative

Assembly and the President will only follow

up the decision of the Constitutional Court

if it is necessary. In fact, the decision of

the Constitutional Court is final and binding

which should be followed up by the People’s

Legislative Assembly and the President as

a form of embodiment of the constitutional

system based on the 1945 Constitution as

well as the consequences of the principleof the constitutional democratic state.

In addition, Article 59 paragraph (2) of Law

8/2011 contains a mistake, namely the

phrase “he People’s Legislative Assembly or

the President”, because according to Article

20 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution,

every bill shall be discussed jointly by

the People’s Legislative Assembly and the

President for mutual approval. Therefore, the

People’s Legislative Assembly or the Presidentdoes not stand alone in discussing a bill,

and so the phrase “the People’s Legislative

Assembly or the President” is inconsistent

with Article 20 paragraph (2) of the 1945

Constitution.

In the injunction for case No. 49/PUUIX/2011,

the Constitutional Court declared Article 59

paragraph (2) of Law No. 8 Year 2011

unconstitutional and without any binding

legal force.

Deadlock in the Procedures for theElection of the Constitutional CourtLeadership

The procedure for electing the leadership

of the Constitutional Court as provided for

in Article 4 paragraph (4f), paragraph (4g),

and paragraph (4h) of Law no. 8 Year 2011

namely that the chief justice and vice chief

justice are elected in “one meeting and one

package”, according to the ConstitutionalCourt, if implemented, could potentially cause

problems later on in the event of vacancy

The attorneys of thepetitioners in the judicial

review of the amendment tothe Constitutional Court Law

and M. Ali Syafaat, as thePrincipal Petitioner at the

Constitutional Court hearingto listen to the statements of

experts on Friday (30/9).

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Eva




Pancasila Education




of the position of chief justice of the

Constitutional Court or the leaders of the

Constitutional Court is not able to exercise

their duties due to permanent unavailability

before the term of service of the chief

justice and vice chief justice of the term of

service of either ends. This provision could

potentially lead to legal deadlock, namely

vacancy of any one of the leaders of the

Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court viewed that this

provision had set aside the ideal principles

of democracy, namely that it did not fulfill

of the principle of simple majority in the

election, for example in the event that there

are two or more candidates obtaining the

second greatest number of votes (for such

positions of vice chairman, for example 5:2:2

votes or 3:2:2:2 votes), then the election

must be repeated for choosing leaders onceagain while the candidate of chief justice

has obtained most votes. Another example

is possible with 9:0 votes or 8:1 votes.

This will affect the level of accountability,

legitimacy, and acceptability of the elected

leadership of the Constitutional Court that

will ultimately affect the performance of the

Constitutional Court. The implementation of

this article is likely to hinder performance,

so that it impairs the constitutional rights

of the citizens in obtaining the recognition,guarantee, protection, and certainty of law.

The Constitutional Court therefore declared

the procedures for the election of the

leadership of the Constitutional Court without

any binding legal force.

Membership of Honorary Council ofJustices of the Constitutional Court

The permanent membership of the Honorary

Council of Justices of the ConstitutionalCourt with the inclusion of the element

The Panel of Justiceswas reading the decisionon the Judicial Reviewof the Amendment to theConstitutional Court Law.










of the People’s Legislative Assembly, the

element of the Government and one Supreme

Court justice in the Honorary Council of

the Constitutional Court which, according to

the Constitutional Court in its decision No.

49/PUU-IX/2011, actually threatened and

interfered either directly or indirectly the

constitutional independence of constitutional

just ices in performing thei r duties and

authorities. The existence of the elementsof the People’s Legislative Assembly, the

Government, and Supreme Court would

potentially lead to conflict of interest because

the People’s Legislative Assembly, Government,

and the Supreme Court as well as the

Judicial Commission could be the disputing

parties in the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court needed to affirm

that the membership of the Honorary Council

of the Constitutional Court consisting ofthe elements of the Judicial Commission,

People’s Legislative Assembly, Government,

and Supreme Court did not guarantee

independence, because it was likely for the

people filling the membership of the Honorary

Council of the Constitutional Court to be

rich with sectoral interests, and therefore,

in order to maintain the independence and

impartiality of the Constitutional Court , then

the Constitutional Court needed to develop

the code of ethics and code of conduct

for constitutional court justice, and that the

members of the Honorary Council of the

Constitutional Court other than those from

the Constitutional Court, as well as of other

elements that should be independent and

non-partisan. Therefore, Article 27A paragraph

(2) sub-paragraph c, sub-paragraph d, and

sub-paragraph e had no mutual connection

with Article 27A paragraph (3), paragraph

(4), paragraph (5), and paragraph (6) of Law

no. 8 Year 2011 and this Article should

also be declared inconsistent with the 1945

Constitution.

Uncertainty of the Requirements ofConstitutional Court Justices

Whereas the phrase “used to become a

state official” in Article 15 paragraph (2)

sub-paragraph h of Law No. 8 Year 2011potentially led to the lack of fair legal

certainty and did not give equal opportunity

for a citizen of Indonesia who wanted to be

a constitutional court justice, because that

phrase could be interpreted cumulatively,

namely that, one had work experience in

the field of law for at least 15 (fifteen)

years and used to become a state official,

or may be one of the options, namely that

one had work experience in the field of

law for at least 15 (fifteen) years or thathe/she used to be a state official. When

Article 15 paragraph (2) sub-paragraph h was

interpreted cumulatively, the candidate would

have to meet both of them, and if the

candidate only met one of the requirements

then he/she would not be qualified to be

a constitutional court justice. Likewise, if

the article interpreted alternatively then one

who used to become a state official would

not be required to have work experience

in the field of law for at least 15 (fifteen)

years in order to be a constitutional court

justice. In fact, to become a constitutional

justice, in addition to having integrity and

personality immaculate, fair, statesmanlike,

one also had to master the constitution

and State system, as provided for in Article

24C paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.

The phrase “and/or used to become a state

official” in Article 15 paragraph (2) sub-

paragraph h of Law 8/2011 also did not




Pancasila Education




provide clear criteria, because not all people

who used to become state officials met the

requirements to become constitutional court

justices. Conversely, many people who had

never become state officials were qualified

to become constitutional court justices. Such

vagueness led to fair legal uncertainty so that

it was declared inconsistent with Article 28D

paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Term of Service of the ConstitutionalCourt Justice is Five Years

Article 26 paragraph (5) of Law no. 8 Year

2011 stated “The successor constitutional

court justice as intended in paragraph (2)

shall continue the remaining term of service

of the successor constitutional court justice.”

According to the Court, this norm was unjust

for a person elected as a constitutional

court justice because he/she would onlycontinue the term of office of the replaced

constitutional court justice. If implemented, the

article would be inconsistent with Article 22

expressly and clearly stating that “The term

of office of the constitutional court justices

shall be 5 (five) years and they may be

reelected only for 1 (one) subsequent term

of office”, so as to lead to internal conflict

(contradictio in terminis).

According to the Constitutional Court,

replacement of constitutional court justice was

not the same as the interim replacement

in the People’s Legislative Assembly and

the Regional Representative Council. Interim

replacement of the members of the People’s

Legislative Assembly and the Regional

Representative Council, which was not through

a new selection process and which had been

reaffirmed in the Law only to continue the

remaining term of service of the members

being replaced. Constitutional court justice

candidates should follow the selection

process by each institution proposing them.

Thus, according to the Constitutional Court,

the term of service of constitutional court

justices as provided for in Article 22 could

not be interpreted other than five years, for

the justices appointed together as well as

for constitutional court justices replacing the

constitutional court justices who had resigned

before the end of their term of service.Narrowing the meaning of Article 22 of the

Constitutional Court Law by not applying it

to the successor constitutional court justice

to hold office for five years would be a

violation of the principle of fair legal certainty

guaranteed by the constitution.

Whereas the Constitutional Court is an

independent state institution demanded

working in a professional, independent and

sustainable manner. The constitutional court justice merely continuing the term of service

of the replaced constitutional court justice

would not guarantee the sustainability of

the performance of the Constitutional Court

in performing its duties and authorities

and would also lead to injustice for the

successor justice.

The Constitutional Court declared the provision

on the term of service of the successor

constitutional court justice to continue the

term of service of the replaced constitutional

court justice unconstitutional and without any

binding legal effect

Transitional regulations of the Law onthe Amendment to the ConstitutionalCourt Law Do Not Guarantee LegalCertainty

The consideration of the Constitutional Court

stated that in addition to leading to legal









uncertainty, Article 87 sub-article a of Law

8/2011 also violated the principle of the

formulation of legislation, particularly the

principle of ‘enforceability. Therefore, while

waiting for the improvement by the legislators,

the election of chief justice and vice chief

justice of the Constitutional Court would use

the old rule namely Article 4 of Law No.


Court and the Regulation of the ConstitutionalCourt of the Republic of Indonesia No. 01/

PMK/2003 concerning the Procedures for the

Election of the Chief Justice and Vice Chief

Justice of the Constitutional Court.

According to the Constitutional Court, the

provision on constitutional court justices as

intended in Article 87 sub-article b of Law

8/2011 applying two laws in a single law,

namely Law No. 24 Year 2003 concerning

the Constitutional Court and Law No. 8 Year

2011 concerning the Amendment to Law

no. 24 Year 2003 concerning Constitutional

Court gave rise to legal uncertainty. In fact,

transitional regulations had been made to

ensure legal certainty.

In addition to giving rise to legal uncertainty,

Article 87 of Law 8/2011 also gave rise

to unequal treatment, because some articles

were directly applicable and implemented,

but some were not directly applicable. Such

application of the two laws constituted

discriminatory treatment to constitutional

court justices performing their duties and

subsequently appointed justices, impaired the

constitutional right of the parties affected

by such changes.

¾ Quorum on the Right to expressopinion is Unconstitutional

In relation to the petition filed by some

members of the People’s Legislative Assembly

who questioned Article 184 paragraph (4)

of Law Number 27 Year 2009 concerning

the People’s Consultative Assembly, the

People’s Legislative Assembly, the Regional

Representatives Council and the RegionalPeople’s Legislative Assembly (MD3) regulating

the ratio of right to express opinions which

had to be approved by the plenary meeting

of the People’s Legislative Assembly being

attended by at least ¾ (three quarters),

with the approval of at least ¾ (three

quarters) of the total number of members

of the People’s Legislative Assembly that are

present at the meeting, the Constitutional

Court in its decision on case No. 23-26/

PUU-VIII/2010 argued that according to the

state administration system of Indonesia, some

rights to express opinions were general in

nature (lex generalis) as regulated in Article

20A of the 1945 Constitution, some were

specific in nature (lex specialis) as regulated

in Article 7B of the 1945 Constitution.

The mechanism for making decisions on

the opinions of the People’s Legislative

Assembly according to Article 7B of the 1945

Constitution shall be performed in the plenary

session which shall be attended by at least

2/3 of the members of the People’s Legislative

Assembly and approved by at least 2/3 of

the members of People’s Legislative Assembly

present at the meeting. Meanwhile, Article 184

paragraph (4) of the MD3 Law, according to




Pancasila Education




the Constitutional Court, regulates all kinds

of rights to express opinions both based

on Article 20A of the 1945 Constitution (lex

generalis) and based Article 7A and Article

7B of the 1945 Constitution (lex specialis). All

kinds of rights include rights of the People’s

Legislative Assembly to express opinions on

government policies, extraordinary events,

to follow-up the right of interpellation andright of inquiry, as well as allegations that

the President and/or Vice President have

violated the law.

The Constitutional Court assessed that

the provisions which emphasized that the

quorum of the right to express opinions was

inconsistent with Article 7B paragraph (3) of

the 1945 Constitution stating that the proposal

to impeach the president and vice president

to the Constitutional Court must obtain 2/3

support of the number of the members of

the People’s Legislative Assembly who are

present. The Constitutional Court’s reason

was that the article led to the increase

of the quorum requirement from 2/3 to

be ¾, as well as the required approval of

the People’s Legislative Assembly’s decision.

Such rule would make the implementationof the right to express opinions more

difficult, especially the right to propose

the impeachment of the president and vice

president to the Constitutional Court. It would

automatically complicate the implementation

of constitutional rights and authorities of the

People’s Legislative Assembly in carrying out

the supervisory function to the President, so

that it was not in line with the system of

checks and balances adopted in the 1945

Constitution.

Lili Wahid with her attorneyat the Constitutional Courthearing on the judicialreview of the Law relatedto the quorum of the rightto express opinions ofthe People’s LegislativeAssembly.

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court









T h e I n q u i r y R i g h t L a w i sUnconstitutional

The regulation of the Right to Inquiry of

the People’s Legislative Assembly that opened

the door for the dissolution of the People’s

Legislative Assembly by the president was

considered inconsistent with Article 7C of

the 1945 asserting that the President cannot

dissolve the People’s Legislative Assembly.According to the Petitioner, the Inquiry Right

Law was based on the concept or mindset

underlying the Inquiry Right Law was Article

84 of the 1950 Provisional Constitution which

reads, ”The President shall have the right

to dissolve the People’s Legislative Assembly.

The Decision of the President declaring such

dissolution shall also instruct the re-election

of the People’s Legislative Assembly within

30 days.”

In addition, Article 77 paragraph (3) of the

MD3 Law has also provided for the same

matter related to the right to Inquiry. This

article reads, “The right to inquiry referred

to in paragraph (1) sub-paragraph b shall be

the right of the People’s Legislative Assembly

to conduct an inquiry into the implementation

of Law and/or government policies relating to

important, strategic matters and which have

broad impacts on the life of the community,

the nation and the state that are allegedly

inconsistent with laws and regulations”

Therefore, the Petitioner stated that, the

provisions regulated in Article 28 of the

Right to Inquiry Law could not be used

as guidelines for the implementation of the

right of inquiry in the People’s Legislative

Assembly at present. The reason was that

our legal system recognized the legal principle

of lex posteriori derogat legi priori (the

latest regulation or law overrides the old

regulation or law).

The Constitutional Court also agreed with the

Petitioners. According to the Constitutional

Court, the provisions in the Law being

reviewed were clearly different from or

inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution which

follows the presidential government system.

In a presidential government system, thepresident cannot freeze and/or dissolve the

People’s Legislative Assembly. In addition,

the formulation procedures and working

mechanism of the inquiry committee as

provided for in Law 6/1954 has also been

provided for in Law 27/2009. In the event

that that law is preserved, it would create

legal uncertainty which is, in fact, inconsistent

with the 1945 Constitution.

Legal Entity Verification is Unnecessaryfor Old Political Parties

The new provisions that require political

parties to undergo verification within a

maximum period of two and a half years

before the 2014 general election voting day

creates injustice, disbenefit, and uncertainty for

the political parties with legitimate legal entity

status under Law no. 2 Year 2008 concerning

Political Parties and which participated in the

2009 general elections.

On this basis, the Constitutional Court in

decision No. 15/PUU-IX/2011 agreed that the

presence of the phrase “its existence shall

continue to be recognized with the obligation

to make adjustments to this Law by following

the verification” as provided for in Article 51

paragraph (1) of Law 2/2011 was not clear.




Pancasila Education




“Its existence” being recognized raised the

question of whether it was concerned with

the existence of a political party as a legal

entity. The phrase “the obligation to follow

the verification” had a legal consequence

to the existence of political parties with

legal entity status, namely, whether the

verification results could directly affect the

existence of political parties in this case thepetitioners. It means that, as political parties,

the petitioners would lose their legal entity

status if they did not pass the verification.

The Constitutional Court argued that such

matter would violate the legal certainty for

the petitioners whose existence as political

parties with legal entity status was guaranteed

by the previous law. Legislators should have

distinguished between the procedures for the

formation or establishment of political parties

and with the rules concerning the requirements

for political parties to be able to participate

in the general election, as well as the

provisions regulating the institutional aspect

of the People’s Legislative Assembly.

The Constitutional Court argued that

Article 51 paragraph (1) of Law 2/2011was unconstitutional along with its indirect

consequence to Article 51 paragraph (1a)

namely, that the existence of the phrase

“verification of political parties as referred

to in paragraph (1)”, Article 51 paragraph

(1b), Article 51 paragraph (1c) was no

longer relevant, so that according to the

Constitutional Court such provisions were no

longer necessary.

The attorneys of thePetitioners were seenwaving and gavethumbs-up after theConstitutional Courtread the decision relatedto old political partiesbeing not required to beveri ed as legal entities.










Verification for New Political PartyCompleted in 2.5 Years

According to the Petitioners, the provision

of Article 51 paragraph (1a) of Law No. 2

Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Law

No. 2 Year 2008 concerning Political Parties

which provides a short time of 2 ½ (two

and a half) year for a political party to

fulfill the obligation of verification has been

applied arbitrarily and unfairly, impeding

the right of every citizen to participate in

government through the establishment of

political parties in order to participate in

the General Election Year 2014.

With respect to the Petitioners’ argument, the

Constitutional Court has passed decision No.

15/PUU-IX/2011, dated July 4, 2011 which

essentially states that the provision of Article

51 paragraph (1) Law 2/2011 is inconsistent

with the 1945 Constitution. In this decision,

the Constitutional Court has also stated that

the provision of Article 51 paragraph (1a)

of Law 2/2011 in the phrase “Verification

of Political Parties as intended in paragraph

(1)” is irrelevant because Article 51 paragraph

(1) Act 2/2011 has been declared without

any binding legal force.

The provision of Article 51 paragraph (1a)

of Law 2/2011, namely to the extent of the

verification of new political parties still applies

to this petition. Since verification of new

political parties is not declared inconsistent

with the 1945 Constitution, such provision

remains constitutional. In decision No. 15/

PUU-IX/2011, dated July 4, 2011, Article 51

paragraph (1a) to the extent of the phrase

“and Political Parties established after the

enactment of this Law, shall be completed

no later than 2 ½ (two and a half) years

prior to the voting day of the general

election” remains valid, but the intention of

decision No. 15/PUU-IX/2011, dated July

4, 2011 is that verification still applies to

“new political parties” and does not apply

to old political parties already having legalentity status and which participated in the

previous general election. With the petition

in this case, the Constitutional Court needs

to determine or declare once again that

what is intended by the phrase “and political

parties established after the enactment of

this Law, shall be completed by no later

than 2 ½ (two and a half) years prior to

the voting day of the general election” being

“the verification of Political Parties established

after the enactment of this Law, shall be

completed no later than 2 ½ (two and a

half) years prior to the voting day of the

general election”

In the injunction of its decision, the

Constitutional Court declared article 51

paragraph (1a) of Law No. 2 Year 2011

concerning Political Parties unconstitutional

and without any binding force to the extent it

is not understood as “verification of Political

Parties established after the enactment of

this Law, shall be completed no later than

2 ½ (two and a half) years prior to the

voting day of the general election for the

first time after such political parties were

established and had legal entity status”




Pancasila Education




Term of Service of the Successorof the Leader of the CorruptionEradication Commission is FiveYears

Article 34 of Law No. 30/2002 concerning

Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law)

allowed for an interpretation that could

potentially or even factually harm one’s

rights. Determination of the term of serviceof members of the successor leader of the

Corruption Eradication Commission which only

continues the remaining term of office of the

members of the leadership of the Corruption

Eradication Commission who resigned before

reaching the four-year period has violated the

principles of legal certainty, equal treatment,

as well as the principle of benefit.

According to the Constitutional Court, Article

34 of the Corruption Eradication Commission

Law is conditionally unconstitutional. The

article is inconsistent with the constitution

insofar it is not understood that the Leaders

of the Corruption Eradication Commission,

both those appointed together and the

successor leader appointed to replace a

leader who resigned during his/her terms of

service shall serve in the office for 4 (four)

years, and may thereafter be re-elected for

another term only.

The reviewed article reads, “Leaders of

the Corruption Eradication Commission shall

hold office for 4 (four) years and may be

re-elected for another term only.” In this

case, the Court granted the petition of the

Petitioners in its entirety. The petitioners in

case No. 5/PUU-IX/2011 consisted of anti-

corruption activists and some lecturer staff

of several universities.

Attorneys of thePetitioners lookedserious in following thehearing of the judicialreview of the CorruptionEradication CommissionLaw.

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Tifa









Wiretapping is regulated by Law, Notby Government Regulation

In the decision No. 5/PUU-VIII/2010, the

Constitutional Court stated that wiretapping

should only be regulated in the form of

a law rather than a Government Regulation

(PP). Wiretapping activities and authorities are

very sensitive because on the one hand they

constitute a restriction of human rights whileon the other hand, they have the aspect of

legal interest. Therefore, the regulation on

the legality of wiretapping should be properly

established and formulated in accordance

with the 1945 Constitution.

Until now, there has been no comprehensive

regulation on wiretapping. The absence of

a standard regulation on wiretapping has

allowed for deviations in its implementation.

In wiretapping, there is a principle of velox

et exactus principle which means that the

information wiretapped must contain current

and accurate information. In this case the

wiretapping shall contain special interests and

shall be performed quickly and accurately.

Under this condition, wiretapping shall imply

is the existence an urgent interest, while it

must still be performed in accordance with

the provisions of the Law for preventing

arbitrary violation of the privacy rights of

others. In this context, a comprehensive and

appropriate regulation is necessary to control

a number of authorities in several laws.

The Constitutional Court considers that the

rights of privacy are part of human rights

which can be restricted (derogable rights).

However, such restriction of rights of privacy

could only be performed by law, as provided

for in Article 28J Paragraph (2) of the 1945

Constitution. It is necessary to have a special

regulation on wiretapping in general up to

the procedures of wiretapping of each of

the authorized institution.

Government Must Finance Community-Based Elementary Education

The Government of the State of Indonesia has

been established, among others, to develop

the intellectual life of the nation. In addition,according to the 1945 Constitution, “Each

person has the right to obtain education

and to enjoy the benefits of science and

technology ...” [vide Article 28C paragraph (1)],

and “The protection, promotion, enforcement

and fulfillment of human rights shall be

the responsibility of the state, particularly

the government” [vide Article 28I paragraph

(4)]. However, the provisions requiring the

government and/or local governments to

provide technical assistances, subsidies, andother resources in a fairly and evenly to

community-based educational institutions of

all levels of education, are not explicitly

defined in the 1945 Constitution.

Considering that according to the provisions

of Article 31 paragraph (2) of the 1945

Constitution, every citizen shall be obligated

to follow basic education and the government

shall be obligated to finance it. For education

level other than elementary education, the

Constitution does not affirm the existence

of financing obligation for the government

and/or local governments. However, that

does not mean that the government is not

responsible for financing education other

than elementary education as one of the

Government’s responsibilities is to develop

the intellectual life of the nation. The extent

and size of the government’s responsibility to

finance education other than elementary and




Pancasila Education




secondary education are highly dependent

on the financial capacity of the Government

and local government by taking account of

the provisions of Article 31 paragraph (4)

of the 1945 Constitution.

In connection with article being reviewed,

namely Article 55 paragraph (4) of Law

20/2003 under the 1945 Constitution, the

Constitutional Court in its decision on

Case No. 58/PUU-VIII/2010 argued that the

word ‘may’ in the article being also related

to Article 31 paragraph (2) of the 1945

Constitution had made it not mandatory for

the government and/or local government to

finance community-based elementary education

or education performed by non=government

parties. That was because the word ‘may’ was

open in nature so that it could eliminate the

sense of obligation of the Government and

was also inconsistent with Article 31 paragraph

(2) of the 1945 Constitution. For education

levels other than elementary education, the

Government had the discretion to finance all

or part of the education fees according to

the financial capacity of the state. Therefore,

according to the Constitutional Court, the

word ‘may’ in Article 55 paragraph (4) of

Law 20/2003 is unconstitutional insofar it is

interpreted that community-based educational

institutions under Article 55 paragraph (4)

of Law 20/2003 shall include elementary

education level.

Obligations Continue before theDecision on the Termination ofEmployment Relationship is final andconclusive ( Inkracht )

Due to legal uncertainty for the parties, in

the judicial review of the phrase “has not

been stipulated”, Article 155 paragraph (2) of

Law no. 13 Year 2003 concerning Manpower,“As long as the decision of the industrial

Visitors at the preliminaryhearing of the judicialreview of the NationalEducation Law, onThursday (13/10).

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/Andhini SF









relations dispute settlement institution has

not been stipulated, both the employer and

workers/laborers shall continue to perform

all of their obligations”, was declared

unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court,

insofar as it is not understood to have not

obtained permanent legal force.

According to the consideration of the

Constitutional Court in case No. 37/PUU-

IX/2011, the phrase “has not been stipulated”

in Article 155 paragraph (2) of Law 13/2003

shall be interpreted as referring to the

decision of the court that has obtained

permanent legal force because some decisions

of the Industrial Relations Court can directly

obtain permanent legal force at the first level

by the Industrial Relations Court, namely,

decisions concerning the of interest, decisions

concerning the disputes among worker unions/

labor unions in one company, as well as

decisions concerning disputes over rights

and termination of employment relationship

that are not subject to appeal. Decisions

concerning dispute over rights and termination

of employment relationship appealed must wait

for the decision of the Supreme Court first

before obtaining permanent legal force.

End of the criminalization to theFarmers

The formulation “it is prohibited to commit

actions that will result in damage to fields

and/or other assets” is too broad. The

words “other assets” do not provide a clear

definition. Elucidation of Article 21 of the

Plantation Law reads, “Referred to as the use

of plantation land without permission shall

be an act of occupation of land without the

permission of the owner in accordance with

laws and legislation”. For the Constitutional

Court, the act of occupation of land without

Expert of the Petitioner inthe Judicial Review of thePlantation Act was giving

his statement at the hearingof the Constitutional Court,

Tuesday (10/5).





Pancasila Education




the permission of the owner has been the

case since the era of Dutch East Indies. At

that time, the Dutch East Indies government

gave a lot of land concessions in the form of

erfpacht rights without clear limitation, so that

they often violated the rights of indigenous

people or the rights under customary law

(erfelijk individueel bezitrecht). These conditions

resulted in conflict between the owners of

the erfpacht rights and indigenous peopleswho controlled the customary land rights. This

problem also occurred during the Japanese

occupation and after independence, so that

various rules have been formed to resolve

such disputes by consensus.

The issues of land occupation without the

owner’s permission are diverse. The solution

should be based on considerations of different

circumstances, in relation to the time of

emergence of the occupation and the cause

of the occupation. The Constitutional Court

assumed that the cases then occurring in

the newly-opened plantation areas might

have been due to the absence of a clear

boundary between the communal rights and

individual rights based on customary law and

the new rights granted by the state.

The Constitutional Court considered the

criminalization provisions excessive becausethe conflict that occurred was a civil dispute

which should be resolved through deliberation

as a priority. Thus the imposition of sanctions

was not appropriate if applied to the person

occupying land under customary law because

the emergence of indigenous rights had been

on ipso facto basis. That means that someone

opens, cultivates the lad and harvests the

crop based on the fact that he has been

intensively cultivating the land for a long time,

so that one’s relationship with the land is

Yusril Ihza Mahendratampak berdiri setelahmemberi penghormatankepada majelis hakim. MKmengabulkan permohonanterkait pengertian saksi dankewajiban memeriksa saksiyang meringankan, Senin(8/8).

HUMAS MK/Andhini SF









increasingly intensive, while on the contrary,

the relationship with customary rights land

has become increasingly weak.

Criminalization to farmers was expected to

end with the issuance of decision No. 55/

PUU-VIII/2010 passed by the Constitutional

Court on September 19, 2011.

Concessions for Management ofCoastal Waters are Unconstitutional

The granting of Concessions for the

Management of Coastal Waters (HP-3) as

stipulated in Article 1 paragraph 18, Article

16, Article 17, Article 18, Article 19, Article

20, Article 21, Article 22, Article 23 paragraph

(4) and paragraph (5), Article 50, Article

51, Article 60 paragraph (1), Article 71 and

Article 75 of Law 27/2007 is inconsistent

with the 1945 Constitution according toDecision No.3/PUU-VIII/2010.


management of coastal areas and small

islands with a view to: (i) protecting,

conserving, rehabilitating, utilizing, and

enhancing coastal resources and small

islands and their ecological system in a

sustainable manner, (ii) creating harmony

and synergy between the Government and

Local Government in the management ofcoastal resources and small islands, and (iii)

strengthening the role of the community and

government agencies as well as promoting

community initiatives in the management of

coastal resources and small islands in order

to achieve justice, equity and sustainability,

cannot be granted with HP-3 by for the

reasons described above.

The Constitutional Court is of the opinion

that to avoid the transfer of responsibility

for state control over the management of

coastal waters and small islands to the

private sector, then the state can provide

the management rights through licensing

mechanisms. Granting permission to private

parties cannot be interpreted to reduce

the authority of the state to make policies

(beleid), to make regulations (regelendaad),perform administration (bestuursdaad),

management (beheersdaad), and control

(toezichthoudensdaad) for the purpose of

people’s welfare. In addition, it would be

still possible for the state to control and

supervise the whole management of coastal

waters and small islands.

Through the licensing mechanism, the granting

of rights to private sector management is

not the granting of property right fullytransferring the state’s right to control to the

private sector within a certain period. Thus,

coastal waters and small islands can still

be managed in an integrated manner and

by building the synergy of various sectoral

plans, addressing management overlaps,

conflicts of utilization and authority, as well

as providing legal certainty.

Defense Witness Must be Examined

The definition of the witness being only the

person who has heard, seen, and experienced

personally the events alleged or charged

restricts and even eliminates the opportunity

for the suspect or the accused to present

witnesses favorable to him because the phrase

“he/she has personally heard, personally seen

and personally experienced” requires that









12 Years, the Criminal Age Limit ofChildren

The Constitutional Court decided the age limit

of children to be subject to criminal liability

to be 12 years old. The minimum age limit

of 12 years provides greater guarantee of the

rights of children to grow and develop, to

obtain protection as guaranteed in Article 28B

Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The minimum age 8 years for children

to be brought to trial and the age not

yet reaching 8 years to be examined by

the investigator are in fact relatively low.

The elucidation of the Juvenile Court Law

to determine the age limit of 8 years

sociologically, psychologically, pedagogically,

when children can be considered to have had

a sense of responsibility. The Constitutional

Court’s opinion that the legal facts showthat there are some problems in the process

of investigation, detention, and trial injuring

the children’s constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Court declared the

phrase, “... 8 (eight) years ..., “in Article 1

paragraph 1, Article 4 paragraph (1), and

Article 5 Paragraph (1) of Law 3/1997

concerning Juvenile Court along with its

elucidation, particularly in relation to the

phrase” ... 8 (eight ) years ... “ conditionally

inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution

(conditionally unconstitutional), namely that it

is unconstitutional, unless interpreted to be”

... 12 (twelve) years ... “. Furthermore, the

phrase expressed in the articles of the Law

along with its elucidation shall have no binding

legal effect (conditionally unconstitutional),

namely unconstitutional, unless interpreted

to be”... 12 (twelve) years ...”.

Submission of the copy of thedecision of the State AdministrativeCourt in 14 Business Days

The Petitioner argued that Article 109

paragraph (3) of the State Administrative

Court Law is inconsistent with Article 28D

paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (2)

of the 1945 Constitution. According to the

Constitutional Court in case No. 17/PUU-IX/2011, the provisions of this chapter have

been substantially changed by the existence

of Article 51a paragraph (2) of Law 51/2009

which states, “The Court shall submit a

copy of the decision to the parties within

a period of no later than 14 (fourteen)

business days as of the pronouncement of

the decision”, although Article 109 paragraph

(3) of the State Administrative Court is not

formally changed.

Since Article 109 paragraph (3) of the State

Administrative Court Law is not changed while

Article 51a paragraph (2) of Law 51/2009 in

substance regulated it differently, then keeping

the article would create legal uncertainty, so

it is inconsistent with Article 28D Paragraph

(1) of the 1945 Constitution. If Article 109

paragraph (3) of the state administrative

court is still applied, the provision of Article

51a paragraph (2) of Law 51/2009 will be

meaningless. To avoid such legal uncertainty,

then the principle of lex posteriori derogat

lex priori ( anteriori ) is applied. This means

that Article 109 paragraph (3) of the state

administrative court law as lex posteriori that

existed earlier was declared invalid by the

new provision of Article 51a paragraph (2)

of Law 51/2009 as lex priori ( anteriori) .




Pancasila Education




Prohibition of the Name “Ombudsman”is unconstitutional

In relation to the restrictions of the use of

the name “Ombudsman” as referred to in

Article 46 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)

of Law 37/2008 concerning Ombudsman of

the Republic of Indonesia, the Constitutional

Court in its decision on case No. 62/

PUUVIII/2010 declared that the petition for judicial review of such article had legal

grounds, so the norm of that article was

declared unconstitutional and without any

binding legal effect.

The Constitutional Court considers that

ombudsman institution cannot be monopolized

by the state. Therefore, the prohibition of

the establishment of an institution by the

name of ombudsman by an institution or

organ other than the Ombudsman of the

Republic of Indonesia is not in line with the

constitutional spirit and protection guaranteed

by the constitution, namely the right to the

recognition, guarantee, protection and fair

legal certainty and equal treatment before the

law in the government and the constitutional

guarantee of the right of everyone to advance

himself in striving for their rights collectively

to develop the community, nation and state.

Such guarantee and protection should also be

given to any agency or institution to establishan ombudsman serving an independent

function to receive reports and complaints,

to investigate, provide alternative solutions or

to give advice on policies or settlement of

the complaints to a particular party.

In Emergency Situations, ParamedicsMay Perform Pharmacy Practice

Extremely limited authority is granted to

health workers, in addition to pharmacy staff,pharmacy-related staff, while on the other

The visitors looked seriousseeing the hearing of judicialreview of the Health Law,Friday (6/5)

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Yogi Dj









hand if they deliberately do not help patients

in an emergency situation, they are threatened

with criminal sanction imprisonment or fine.

According to the Court, the sentence “...

must be performed by health personnel with

expertise and authority in accordance with

the laws and regulations” which, according

to its elucidation, are pharmacy personnel in

accordance with their expertise and authority,

where in the absence of pharmacy personnel,certain health professionals may practice

pharmacy in a limited manner, such as,

among others, physicians and/or dentists,

midwives, and nurses, to be implemented

in accordance with laws and regulations,

creates problems.

Such norm is right and fair when health

care facilities and infrastructure throughout

Indonesia have been met, also with the

availability of adequate human resources,in the sense that all necessary types of

competence and professionalism for good

health facilities. The evidence suggests that,

the health facilities and human resources are

in minimum conditions. In addition, access to

existing health facilities is very difficult.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court stated

in decision No.12/PUU-VIII/2010 that Article

108 paragraph (1) of Law No. 36 of 2009

concerning Health throughout the sentence, “...

must be performed by health personnel with

expertise and authority in accordance with

the laws and regulations” is unconstitutional

unless interpreted in such a way that health

workers are pharmacy staff, and in the

absence of pharmacy personnel, certain health

professionals can perform a limited pharmacy

practice such as, among others, physicians

and/or dentists, midwives, and nurses who

perform their duties in emergency situations

that threatens the safety of life and that

need immediate medical treatment to save

the patients.

Notice of Smoking Dangers Not Onlyin Writing

Health warning is “a clear and easy to

read writing which can be accompanied

by a picture or any other form “. Penaltyshall apply to “Any person who intentionally

produces or imports cigarettes into the

territory of the Republic of Indonesia without

including a health warning in the form of a

picture as intended in Article 114 shall be

sentenced to imprisonment. According to the

Constitutional Court in its decision No. 34/

PUUVIII/2010 there are unsynchronized norms

whose interpretations potentially impair the

rights of citizens.

Such provisions must be interpreted as the

obligation of manufacturers and importers of

cigarettes to include a warning in the form

of clear text and images. It thus deals with

security and protection of the rights of every

person to obtain information as stipulated

in Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. The

mandatory health warning signs which include

a picture or any other form are intended

to ensure fulfillment of the constitutional

rights of citizens of Indonesia, especially

the consumers and/or potential consumers

of cigarettes to obtain information about the

dangers of smoking.

In the injunction of its decision, the

Constitutional Court stated, among others,

that the word “may” in Article 114 of Law

No.36 of 2009 concerning Health along

with its elucidation are unconstitutional and

have no binding legal force, so that the




Pancasila Education




elucidation of the article shall fully read:

“Referred to as” health warning “in this

provision shall be clearly written and easy

to read text accompanied by pictures or

other forms. The phrase “in the form of

images” in Article 199 paragraph (1) of

the Health Law is unconstitutional and has

no binding legal force, so that the article

has become, “Any person who deliberately

manufactures or imports cigarettes into theterritory of the Republic of Indonesia without

including a health warning referred to in

Article 114 shall be punished with maximum

imprisonment of 5 (five) years and maximum

fine of Rp500,000,000.00 (five hundred million

rupiah).

Status of Native Papuan based on theRecognition of Indigenous Tribes

The provision that Papuan People’s Assembly(MRP) has the duty and authority to give

considerations and approval of the candidates

and prospective candidates for Governor and

Vice Governor by DPRP is, according to

the Court, unclear and could lead to legal

uncertainty and could lead to unjust violations

of constitutional rights guaranteed by the

constitution, both for indigenous tribes in

Papua as well as customary law community

units as well as for individual citizens of

the native tribes.

In the legal consideration of the Constitutional

Court in case No.29/PUU-IX/2011, Yawa Onat

Tribe is factually a customary law community

unit having traditional rights in the province

of Papua which have obtain constitutional

guarantee and protection. The absence of

local regulations that establish the existence

of a customary law community unit does

not mean the absence of customary law

community unit.

A witness was giving hisstatement in relation to

judicial review of nativePapuan people to run forregional head in the PapuaSpecial Autonomy Law,Tuesday (14/06).










According to the Constitutional Court, the two

criteria of indigenous Papuans in Article 1,

sub-article t of Law 21/2001, have reflected

the meaning that the membership of a

customary law community may arise, either

naturally coming from members of indigenous

tribes or because they have been recognized

as members of the customary law community

for common reasons of the customary law

community concerned, and performed inaccordance with the mechanism consistently

applied by the customary law community. The

recognition and acceptance of outsiders to

become members of the tribe of a customary

law community by Yawa Onat Tribe must

follow customary procession that have been

performed under the laws and customs of

the tribe concerned, and must also obtain

constitutional guarantee and protection.

MRP’s action that ignored the decision of thecustomary law community of Yawa Onat that

had acknowledged and accepted a person

to be a member of the customary law

community unit was not appropriate because

it had ignored the constitutional rights of

the customary law community unit of Yawa

Onat. The Constitutional Court declared Article

20 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph a of Law

No. 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for

Papua Province unconstitutional to the extent

it is not interpreted that the consideration

and approval of the MRP on a person’s

status as an indigenous person of Papua as

referred to Article 1 sub-article t of Law No

21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua

Province, prospective candidates for governor

and/or vice governor shall be based on the

recognition of the indigenous tribes in Papua

from which the prospective candidates of

governor and/or vice governor are.

Decisions on Disputes overthe Results of GeneralElec t ions of Regiona lHeads

In addition to judicial review, throughout

2011, the Constitutional Court has exercised

its authority to adjudicate disputes over

the results of general elections of regional

heads (PHPU Kada). This authority is

mandated by Article 24C paragraph (1) of

the 1945 Constitution, Article 10 paragraph

(1) sub-paragraph d of Law No.24 of 2003

concerning the Constitutional Court juncto

Article 29 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph d of

Law No.48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power.

The authority of the Constitutional Court is

affirmed in Article 236C of Law 12 Year

2008 concerning the Second Amendment to

Law No. 32 of 2004 concerning Regional

Government followed-up with the signing of

the transfer of authority to hear cases of

Dispute over the Results of General Election

of Regional Head from the Supreme Court

to the Constitutional Court on October 29,

2008, so that since November 1, 2008 the

cases have been heard by the Constitutional

Court until today.

Throughout 2011, cases handled by the

Constitutional Court still showed the practice

of democracy being just on the body and

skin rather than the substance. The spirit of

democracy was caged and marginalized due

to various forms of violations, dishonesty,

partiality, money politics, even threats

and intimidation. Consequently, regional

governments formed were governments

claiming democracy or democratic legitimacy

for winning the General Election of the

Regional Head directly, while in fact,




Pancasila Education




this set aside values of democracy and

principles of rule of law state in running

the government.

Democracy is indicated not only by the

implementation of the general elections

regularly with the presence of competition

among candidates of the leaders/

representatives of the people and people’s

participation in assessing and determining

their choice. General Election and also the

General Election of the Regional Head are

not intended to gain power by fraudulent

means in violation of the principles of

democracy or to make democracy as the

arena for short-term interest transactions,

where the people serve only as objects placed

and controlled by consumers who desire a

candidate with the slogans, advertisements,

and money. People’s participation does not

stop with the election of the representatives

and leaders.

In essence, substantive democracy is real

democracy. In addition to implementing

procedural democracy, we also need to

realize the “actually true” democracy.

Democracy is not merely understood as

a general election as it is in authoritarian

states. General Elections are an important

aspect of democracy to be widely used

and implemented with integrity and quality,

both in the process and outcome. Principles

of democratic elections are also applied

factually and as a means for implementing

people’s sovereignty performed in a direct,

general, free, confidential, honest, just and

accountable manner.

Government formed on the basis of people’s

choice is expected to do something for

the benefit of the people. The will and

wishes of the people underlie and flow into

all the policies stipulated by the people’s

representatives and leaders at the national

Panel of justices of theConstitutional Courtchaired by Akil Mochtarwas examining the case ofDispute over the Resultsof the General Electionof the Regional Head ofMorotai Regency.

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/Ganie









and local levels. Policies produced shall

involve not only the citizens, but it shall

also accommodate all the wants, needs,

aspirations and preference of the people.

Substantive democracy that accommodates

diverse interests, shall give equal opportunities

to all the people in order to bring prosperity

and justice for all citizens.

In 2011, from the petition of the Dispute overthe Results of General Election of Regional

Head, constitutional court justices have moved

to open the way for developing a substantive

democracy in enforcing a constitutional

democratic state. The two main principles in

the constitution which are always used as

reference are democracy and protection of

citizens’ constitutional rights. Democracy is

not merely a procedure, but it also as a

set of values that determine the form and

function of the government.

Democracy shall be understood not only as

the norms of legal rules and decisions, but

more important as its compliance with the

will and sense of justice of the people at

large. Democracy cannot leave, much less

violate citizens’ constitutional rights, because

a democracy should rely on law (nomocracy),

because democracy is actually standing on

the principle of recognition of citizenship with

all the rights as citizens. Automatically, it is

not democracy if in the implementation it

violates constitutional rights of citizens.

In its decisions, the Constitutional Court

found the practice of democracy colored

with money transaction and fraud and also

opened the way to respond to democracy

interpreted procedurally. The Constitutional

Court moved from being a “calculator”

court only adjudicating disputes over the

number of results between the participants

in the General Election and the organizer to

examining more substantial matters, namely

violations and fraud that appear to distort

the real substance of democracy and violate

citizens’ constitutional rights. The Constitutional

Court does not have any explicit authority

to prosecute and punish any violations and

fraud in the cases it hears, but it is as

it should, a constitutional obligation for the

sake of upholding a constitutional democraticstate, to make it the basis for passing

decisions in accordance with substantive

justice as well.

Systematic, structured and massive violations

have an impact on the final vote result of

General Head Election. Most decisions on

systematic, structured and massive violations

were passed in 2011 with decisions ordering

re-voting using the instrument of interlocutory

injunction. In addition to systematic, structuredand massive violations, a number of violations

related to the right to be selected, the right

to run for regional head, and violations

during the stages of General Election of

Regional Head, were also decided upon by

the Constitutional Court in accordance with

the violations. Decisions of the Constitutional

Court based on the quality and quantity

have increasingly developed by conducting

an assessment of various criminal and

administrative violations at each stage of

the General Election of Regional Head with

sanctions being in accordance with the weight

of violations in the domain of authority the


The Constitutional Court in hearing a case

of Dispute over the Results of General

Election of Regional Head is still within

the framework of the paradigm to uphold

substantive justice and the judiciary to provide

electoral justice by recovering the violations




Pancasila Education




of election rights, in addition for learning the

democratic process by providing strict and

hard punishment. This paradigm has given way

to the awakening of the purpose and nature

of democracy itself. The Constitutional Court

asserts itself as the guardian of democracy

by continuously referring to the principle

of substantive justice and democracy, not

merely to procedural justice and democracy

with periodic elections but full of fraud andleft unquestioned.

During 2011, the Constitutional Court received

petitions of Dispute over the Results of

General Elections of Regional Heads and

registered as many as 126 petitions and 6

remaining cases, 131 cases not yet decided

upon by the Constitutional Court, so that

there was one case not yet resolved. Of

the total 131 cases decided, 13 cases were

granted (10%), 87 cases were rejected (66%)and 28 cases could not be accepted (21%)

and 1 case was withdrawn (1%). Unlike the

decisions made previously, this time the

Constitutional Court made relatively many

decisions granting the petitions so as to make

a legal breakthrough in addition to continuing

the case-law of previous decisions.

Disqualifying the Candidate Pair inthe General Election of the Regional

Head of Pati

The Constitutional Court was of the

opinion that the replacement of prospective

candidate pairs for regional head and deputy

regional head during the completion of

files of nomination requirements is justified

and allowed. Even though it allowed for

replacement, the candidates who would

replace the petitioner (H. Imam Suroso and

Sujoko) would also be assessed whether

they have obtained the recommendationfrom DPP PDIP.

Expression of the Petitioners’attorneys after the reading ofthe decision on the Disputeover the Results of GeneralElection of the RegionalHead of Pati Regency, onMonday (22/8).










It was proven that in accordance with

the guidelines for the Implementation of

Registration and Screening of Candidates for

Regional Head and Vice Regional Head of

the Provincial/City from PDI-P an absolute

right had been granted to DPP PDIP to

determine and decide upon the candidates

who would be nominated. In addition, the

Central Executive Board (DPP) of PDI-Struggle

had also issued Decision No. 082/KPTS/DPP/V/2011 regarding the dismissal of H.

Sunarwi, SE., MM. from membership in PDI P

dated May 22, 2011. Under these provisions,

and by State Administrative Court Decision

No. 24/G/2011/PTUN Semarang. SMG, dated

August 15, 2011 (see Exhibit P-30) even

though legal measures were sought by

the interested parties against the decision,

the Constitutional Court believed that the

nomination of the Related Parties (H. Sunarwi

and Tejo Pramono) as a Candidate Pair ofthe Regent and Vice Regent of Pati Regency

2011 was in violation of the provisions

stipulated in the intended PDIP regulation.

Considering that since the nomination of the

Related Parties was not in accordance with

the provisions stipulated in PDIP regulation

mentioned above, then the Constitutional

Court declared the nomination invalid and

they should be disqualified as a Candidate

Pair of Regional Head and Deputy Head of

Pati regency in 2011.


Prospective Candidate Pair of Regent and

Vice Regent of Pati regency 2011 who

were legally nominated by PDIP consisted

of Imam Suroso and Sujoko (Petitioners).

Since in the nomination, the Respondent had

not verified the requirements for Prospective

Candidate Pair of Regent and Vice Regent

of Pati 2011 for Imam Suroso and Sujoko

(Petitioners), the Constitutional Court ordered

the General Election Commission of Pati

Regency to conduct verification of the

requirements for the prospective candidates

pair of Imam Suroso and Sujoko (Petitioners)

and after verification if they were qualified

as candidates, the candidate pair had to

be included in the General Election ofRegional Head and Vice Regional Head of

Pati regency 2011.

In its decision No.82/PHPU.D-IX/2011 the

Constitutional Court disqualified the candidate

pair of H. Sunarwi and Tejo Pramono in

the General Election of the regional head

of Pati Regency 2011 and ordered to the

General Election Commission of Pati Regency

to conduct verification of the requirements

of the prospective candidate pair of theRegent and Vice Regent of Pati Regency

2011 of, H. Imam Suroso and Sujoko to

replace the candidate pair of H. Sunarwi and

Tejo Pramono in accordance with applicable

laws and regulations, and ordered to General

Election Commission of Pati Regency to re-

stipulate the candidate pair in the General

Election of the Regional Head of Pati Regency

2011. The Constitutional Court subsequently

ordered the General Election Commission of

Pati Regency to conduct re-voting in General

Election of the Regional Head of Pati Regency

2011 and ordered the General Election

Commission, the General Election Supervisory

Board, the General Election Commission of

Central Java Province, the General Election

Supervisory Committee of Pati Regency to

supervise the re-voting in accordance with

their authority.




Pancasila Education




Re-verification of Candidates ofGovernor and Vice Governor ofCentral Tapanuli

The General Election Commission of Central

Tapanuli proved to have committed violations

in the General Election of the Regional Head

of Central Tapanuli Regency These violations

was committed by not conducting verification

and clarification to the Central ExecutiveBoard of the Political Party nominating

prospective candidate pairs of regional head

according to applicable regulations. In fact,

the General Election Commission of Central

Tapanuli as Respondent in this case, was

aware the problems in the management of

the nominating parties.

The Respondent could not prove that it had

conducted the research on the legality of

the administrators of political parties and

factual clarifications in accordance with Article

61 of the General Elections Commission

Regulation (PKPU) No. 13/2010 concerning

Technical Guidelines for Regional Head

Election Nomination Procedures. Meanwhile, the

Petitioners, Candidate Pair of Regional Head

Albiner Sitompul and Steven PB Simaningkalit,

were able to prove the existence of political

parties which had not been verified.

Thus, the Constitutional Court stated in its

decision number 31/PHPU.DIX/2011, that the

petition was proven partly. The Constitutional

Court ordered the Respondent to perform

verification and clarification of the four

candidates nominated by political parties in

the General Election of the Regional Head

of Central Tapanuli. The pairs were the pair

of Dina Riana Samosir and Hikmal Batubara,

pair of Albiner Sitompul and Steven PB

Simanungkalit, pair of Muhammad Armand

The General ElectionCommission was givingthe statement on theimplementation of thedecision of the ConstitutionalCourt to re-verify thecandidates of Regent andVice Regent of CentralTapanuli, Thursday (26/05).

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt









Effendy Pohan and Hotbaen Gultom Bonar, as

well as the pair of Raja Bonaran Situmeang

and Sukran Jamilan Tanjung.

The Constitutional Court subsequently

ordered for the results of the verification

and clarification to be reported to the

Constitutional Court within 30 (thirty) days

after the decision was pronounced. The

Constitutional Court also ordered theRespondent to conduct verification and factual

clarification in accordance with Article 61 of

PKPU No. 13/2010. This provision, in essence,

indicates if there are problems related to the

nominating party, i.e. management of double

or multiple nominations, the Commission shall

conduct research to the central leadership

of the party and clarified the matters by

referring to the articles of association of

the political party concerned. And, if the

problem is the management at the centrallevel, the clarification shall be conducted

with reference to the Minister of Justice and

Human Rights Republic of Indonesia on the

ratification of the management of political

parties which are still valid.

Meanwhile, with respect to case No.32/

PHPU.DIX/2011 filed by candidates Dina

Riana Samosir and Hikmal Batubara, the

Constitutional Court decided to postpone the

decision on the substance of the petition

until decision No. 31/PHPU.D-IX/2011 had

been implemented.

Verification of Prospective Candidatesand Re-voting in Buton Regency

In relation to the petition of Dispute over the

Results of General Election of the Regional

Head of Buton Regency, the Constitutional

Court in its decision of the case No.

91-92/PHPU.D-IX/2011, ordered the Buton

Regency Commission to conduct administrative

and factual verification of the nominated

prospective candidate pairs nominated by

political parties as many as seven people

and four individual candidates.

In addition, the Constitutional Court ordered

the General Election Commission, the General

Election Supervisory Board, the General

Election Commission of Southeast Sulawesiprovince, and the General Election Supervisory

Committee of Buton Regency to supervise

the implementation of administrative and

factual verification for prospective as well

as the re-voting in accordance with their

authority.

The Constitutional Court argued that it had

been convincingly proven that Respondent

was not serious in conducting verification

of the screening of candidates from politicalparties and had obstructed the right of

Petitioner I to be nominated in a candidate

pair participating in the General Election of

the Regional Head of Buton Regency 2011

(rights to be candidate) which constituted

serious violations of the constitutional rights

of Petitioner I guaranteed by the constitution.

In addition, Member of the General Election

Commission, Sumarno, had asked for money

to the Petitioner I, had injured the democratic

principles of honesty and fairness in the

implementation of General Election of the

Regional Head of Buton Regency Election

of 2011.

In addition, according to the Constitutional

Court, it had been convincingly proven

that the Commission did not conduct the

administrative and factual verification correctly

according to the law on individual candidate

pairs so as to violate the principles of

direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and




Pancasila Education




fair election, as mandated in the constitution.

The passage of individual candidates without

proper verification had affected the results of

Election, so that such violations were included

in the category of structured, systematic

and massive violations which could cancel

the results of the Regional Head General

Election.

Campaign and Re-Voting in WestPapua Province

After a relatively long process, the

Constitutional Court in its decision on case

No.84/PHPU.DIX/2011 passed a final decision

ordering the General Election Commission of

West Papua province to organize the campaign

stage and re-voting in the General Election

of Regional Head of West Papua Province.

Four Candidate Regional Head and DeputyHead of Region, namely: Wahidin Puarada-

Herman Donatus Pelix Orisoe, Dominggus

Mandacan and Origenes Nauw, Abraham

Octavianus Atururi- Rahimin Katjong, and

George Celcius Auparay- Hasan Ombaier had

to participate in the campaign and re-voting.

In addition, the institution also decided to

instruct the General Election Commission,

the General Election Supervisory Board, the

General Elections Supervisory Committee of

West Papua province to supervise the stage

of campaign and re-voting in accordance

with their authority.

The Constitutional Court argued that part of

the Petitioners’ petition was proved to have

affected the results of General Election of

the Regional Head of West Papua Province

in 2011, especially as the General Elections

Supervisory Committee of West Papua

Province, according to General Election

Supervisory Board, could not carry out its

duties for having no access.

The implementation of the campaign and

voting, being only followed by one out

of four candidate pairs, according to the

Constitutional Court, reduced and even

negated the legitimacy of the results. To

Produce the Governor and Vice Governor

of West Papua who have strong legitimacy,the Constitutional Court considered that the

campaign and voting should be conducted

again to be followed by all existing (four)

pairs of candidates. Nevertheless, to prevent

the campaign and re-voting from being

interrupted by possible re-boycott by one or

more candidate pairs, the Constitutional Court

argued, that the rescheduled campaign and

re-voting should be held even if there was

a General Election candidate participant who

after the decision was pronounced declarednot participate or to boycott. Simultaneously,

this is an obligation of the General Election


Board, and the General Election Supervisory

Committee to supervise and monitor the

implementation of this decision according to

their respective authorities.

Re-opening the Registration of theCandidates for Aceh Governor

As a result of the stipulation of the

stages, program, and schedule of General

Election implementation in Aceh by the

Independent Election Commission of Aceh,

and the interruption of the discussion of

the regional regulation (qanun) concerning

the procedures for the implementation of

the phases of General Election in Aceh, the

regulation concerning the General Election

of the Regional Head in Aceh led to legal









Independent ElectionCommission of Aceh was

presenting its explanation atthe hearing on the case of

the Dispute over the Resultsof General Election of the

Regional Head of Aceh,Monday (31/10)

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Eva

uncertainty, in addition to the old regional

regulation (qanun) that needed to be changed

because it contained limitations, while the

changes were not yet implemented and

even the discussion was stalled, so that

the Constitutional Court should pass an

interlocutory injunction.

Before passing the final decision, theConstitutional Court ordered the Respondent

to re-open registration for candidate pairs of

Governor/Vice Governor, Regent/Vice Regent,

and Mayor/Vice Mayor, to give opportunity

to new candidates who had not been

registered, nominated whether by political

parties, coalition of political parties or, up to

7 (seven) days as from the pronouncement of

the interlocutory injunction. The Constitutional

Court subsequently declared adjustments to

the stage, program, and schedule of general

elections of Governor/Vice Governor, Regent/

Vice Regent, Mayor/Deputy Mayor in Aceh

Province, as a result of this interlocutory

injunction.

The Petitioners in case No. 108/PHPU.

DIX/2011 dated November 2, 2011 were H.T.A.Khalid, prospective candidate of the Regional

Head of Aceh Province and Fadhlullah,

prospective candidate of the Regional Head

of Pidie Regency. The Respondent was the

Independent Election Commission of Aceh,

while the Related Party was Irwandi Yusuf,

candidate for Governor, Participant of the

General Election of Regional Head and Deputy

Head of Aceh Province 2011.




Pancasila Education




Independent Election Commissionof Aceh was to Continue theImplementation of General Electionof the Regional Head

The Constitutional Court in its decision to

strengthen its Provisional Injunction Number

108/PHPU.D-IX/2011 dated November 2,

2011, ordered the Independent Election

Commission of Aceh and the Independent

Election Commission of Regency/City to

continue the implementation the stages,

program, and schedule of implementation of

general elections of Governor/Vice Governor,

Regent/Vice Regent, Mayor/Deputy Mayor in

the province of Aceh; individual candidates

in the General Election were appropriate and

not inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution

of the Republic of Indonesia and did not

violate point 1.2.2 of the Memorandum of

Understanding between the Government of

the Republic of Indonesia and the Free Aceh

Movement. In addition, the Constitutional Court

declared it had authority to hear the dispute

over the results of General Election of the

regional head in Aceh Province.

According to the Constitutional Court, allowing

individual candidates in the General Election

of the Regional Head for other regions in

Indonesia that would learn from the people

of Aceh is intended, among other things, to

increase the value of democracy in general

election of the regional head. Individual

candidates who were previously allowed only

once, namely in general election of regional

head 2006, was be applied to the subsequent

general elections of the regional heads.

The atmosphere of the takingthe witnesses’ oath beforesubstantiation in the caseof Dispute over the Resultsof General Election of theRegional Head of Morotai.










General Election Commission of MTBRegency Ordered to Receive theCandidacy Files

An important decision in 2011 was the

interlocutory injunction of the Constitutional

Court ordering the General Election Commission

of West Southeast Maluku Regency to

accept the files of the Candidate Pair of

Isai Wuritimur and Angwarmase Lukas (thePetitioners), and to perform administrative

verification and factual clarification. In

addition, the General Election Commission of

Maluku and the General Elections Supervisory

Committee of West Southeast Maluku Regency,

as well as General Election Supervisory Board

were ordered to supervise the verification and

clarification according to their authority. In

addition, the interlocutory injunction ordered

to report the administration verification and

factual clarification to the Constitutional Court

within 45 (forty five) days after this decision

was pronounced.

The Interlocutory Injunction in case No.

125/PHPU.DIX/2011 was petitioned by the

Prospective Candidate Pair of Isai Wuritimur

and Angwarmase Lukas in the General Election

of the Regional Head of West Southeast

Maluku 2011. In its consideration, the

Constitutional Court found indications of anattempt of the General Election Commission

to obstruct the political party to nominate the

candidate pair (right to propose candidate),

and the neglect of the court decision, which

indicated the existence of bad faith of the

General Election Commission. In addition, it

heard the opinions of some experts, including

the opinion of the Petitioner’s expert Maruarar

Siahaan who explained that if the organizer

of the general election for no clear reason,

intentionally set aside the candidate pair,

The witnesses returned totheir seats after having their

oath taken as witnessesin the case of the General

Election of the RegionalHead of Central South-East

Maluku, Thursday (15/12).

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Andhini SF




Pancasila Education




then allowing it to happen would lead to

the violation of the right to be candidate

as human rights and having the position

as a supra-constitutional norm. Therefore,

according to the Constitutional Court, there

were violations of the rights of individual and

political parties and/or coalition of political

parties to file candidate pairs who should

not be ignored in the implementation of the

General Elections.

Meanwhile, the case No.124/PHPU.D-IX/2011,

for the sake of legal certainty and fairness

in maintaining the principle of the General

Election of the Regional Head which is direct,

general, free, confidential, honest, and just,

the Constitutional Court issued a provisional

injunction before passing the final decision,

whereby the substance of the Petitioners’

petition was postponed until the administrative

verification and factual clarification by the

General Election Commission as ordered by

the Constitutional Court in decision Number.

125/PHPU.D-IX/2011 dated December 23,

2011 had been performed and reported to

the Constitutional Court.

Re-Voting in all Polling Stations inPekanbaru City and in 4 Districts ofCianjur Regency

The Constitutional Court its Interlocutory

injunction on Friday (24/6), ordered toGeneral Election Commission of Pekanbaru to

perform re-voting (PSU) in all polling stations

in the city of Pekanbaru. The Constitutional

Court also ordered the General Election


Board and the General Elections Supervisory

Committee, the General Election Commission

of Riau Province and the General Elections

Supervisory Committee of Pekanbaru City to


their authority. In addition, the results of

The panel of justice chairedby Moh. Mahfud MD gave abrie ng before the witnesseshad their oath taken, onMonday (13/06).










the re-voting should be reported to the

Constitutional Court no later than 90 days

after the pronouncement of the decision.

The decision on the case of the dispute

over the results of General Election of

the Regional Head Election of Pekanbaru

No.63/PHPU.D-IX/2011 was filed by the

candidate pair of Septina Primawati-Erizal

Muluk. The Constitutional Court argued that

the implementation of General Election of

the Regional Head of Pekanbaru City 2011indicated the occurrence of violations that

were structured, systematic and massive (TSM)

which injured the principles of democratic

implementation of the General Election

based on the principles of direct, general,

free, confidential, honest and just general

elections.

In addition, in its decision on the Dispute

over the Results of General Election of

the Regional Head of Cianjur No. 10-12/PHPU.D-IX/2011, the Constitutional Court also

ordered to the General Election Commission

of Cianjur Regency to perform re-voting in

General Election of the Regional Head of

Cianjur Regency in 4 (four) districts, namely:

(1) Cianjur District, (2) Cipanas District, (3)

Mande District, and (4) Pacet District and

ordered the General Election Commission of

West Java Province, the General Election

Supervisory Board, and the General Elections

Supervisory Committee of Cianjur Regency to


their authority, and to report the results ofthe re-voting to the Constitutional Court no

later than 60 (sixty) days after this decision

was pronounced.

According to the Constitutional Court there

were structured, systematic and massive

violations in the implementation of General

Election of the Regional Head in Cianjur

Regency, namely in the form of radiogram

issuance and utilization of ARWT organizations

to socialize and campaign the workingprograms of the Related Party in a structured

Candidate of SouthTangerang Regent was

interviewed by the mediaafter the Constitutional Court

read the nal decision.





Pancasila Education




manner and in stages involving many regional

government officers from the district level

up to the Neighborhood Ward/Neighborhood

Block level, and these had been conducted

with systematic and mature planning, so as

to violate the principles of direct, general,

free, confidential, honest and just general

elections. The petition was proven and also

convinced the Constitutional Court only in 4

(four) districts in Cianjur Regency. kecamatandi Kabupaten Cianjur.

Stipulating the Correct Vote Acquisitionof Vote after Re-Voting

Throughout 2011, after re-voting was

implemented according to the injunction of the

Constitutional Court, then the Constitutional

Court in the final decision of the Dispute

over the Results of General Election of the

Regional Head of South Buru Regency caseNo. 216/PHPU.DVIII/2010, on March 4, 2011,

the Constitutional Court decided to stipulate

the correct vote acquisition for the participants


of South Buru Regency 2010 consisting of

six candidate pairs. The majority vote was

acquired by the Candidate Pair Number 6 of

Tagop Sudarsono Soulissa and Ayub Seleky

who acquired 8,443 (eight thousand four

hundred and forty-three) votes.

Subsequently, with the implementation of

the re-voting in the General Election of theRegional Head of Pandeglang Regency in all

polling stations of Pandeglang on Sunday,

December 26, 2010, the Constitutional Court

in its final decision No. 190/PHPU.D-VIII/2010

argued that no new matters and situations

were convincingly supported by written

evidence of the parties that could significantly

affect the results of the acquisition of

votes and which could change the ranks of

acquisition of votes as well as the eligibility

of each Candidate Pair. Moreover,, theacquisition of votes between the Petitioners

and Related Parties now getting increasingly

different, namely 34,948 votes initially, and

The visitors were watchingthe hearing via a monitorscreen at the ConstitutionalCourt Building.










In addition, on April 26, 2011, the

Constitutional Court stipulated the vote

acquisition in the re-voting in Cianjur District,

Cipanas District, Mande District, and Pacet

District in General Election of the Regional

Head of Cianjur Regency 2011 with the

majority of vote being acquired by candidate

pair number 5, H. Tjetjep Muchtar Soleh and

H. Suranto, namely with 67,912 (sixty seven

thousand nine hundred and twelve) votes.

The Constitutional Court then stipulated the

overall acquisition of votes (after re-voting)


of Cianjur Regency 2011 with the majority

of vote being acquired by candidate pair

number 5, H. Tjetjep Muchtar Soleh and H.

Suranto with 379,797 (three hundred seventy

nine thousand seven hundred and ninety-

seven) votes.

then 44,639 votes after re-voting. In the

injunction, the Constitutional Court stipulated

the results of the vote acquisition for each

candidate pair in the General Election of the

Regional Head of Pandeglang Regency 2010

consisting of six candidate pairs, with the

majority vote being acquired by candidate pair

number 6, H. Erwan Kurtubi and Hj. Heryani,

with 265,263 (two hundred sixty five thousand

two hundred and sixty-three) votes.

Subsequently, the Constitutional Court passed

its final decision by stipulating the acquisition

of votes in the re-voting of the General

Election of the Regional Head of North

Konawe Regency 2010 with the majority

of vote among the eight candidates being

acquired by candidate pair number 1, H.

Aswad Sulaeman P and Ruksamin namely

with 2,327 (two thousand three hundred and

twenty-seven) votes.

Vice Regent of Cianjur asRelated Party in the case of

the Disputes over the Resultsof General Election of theRegional Head of Cianjur

was waving hand after thereading of the decision, on

Tuesday (26/04)





Pancasila Education




As for the case of Dispute over the Results

of General Election of the Regional Head of

Tebo Regency, the Constitutional Court in its

final decision stipulated the vote acquisition

of each candidate pair in the re-voting of


Tebo Regency 2011 consisting of the three

candidate pairs, with the majority vote

being acquired by candidate pair number

1, H. Sukandar and Hamdi with 78,754

(seventy-eight thousand seven hundred and

fifty-four) votes.

Furthermore, in its final decision of case

No.209-210/PHPU.D-VIII/2010, the Constitutional

Court stipulated the vote acquisition in Re-

voting of the General Election of the Regional

Head of South Tangerang City 2010, with the

majority vote being acquired by candidate

pair number 4, Hj. Airin Rachmi Diany

and H. Benjamin Davnie with 241,797 (two

hundred forty one thousand seven hundred

and ninety-seven) votes.

St ipula t ing the Correc t VoteAcquisition

Throughout 2011, in the case of the Dispute


Morotai Regency No. 59/PHPU.D-IX/2011,

the Constitutional Court declared that the

General Election Commission was found guilty

of violations and errors in the recapitulation

of the counting of vote acquisition in allpolling stations located in five districts of

Morotai Island Regency, which had benefited

one of the candidate pairs and harmed the

other candidate pairs and had injured the

joints of democracy in the General Election

of Regional Head should be direct, general,

free, confidential, honest, and just.

Based on these considerations, the

Constitutional Court had to stipulate the

correct vote acquisition of all candidatepairs from all polling stations located in five

districts of Morotai Island Regency according

Joy of the hearingvisitors after the Panelof Justices read thedecision on the caseof the Dispute over theResults of the GeneralElection of the RegionalHead of Gorontalo,Monday (19/12).










to the Constitutional Court in line with the

evidence and the facts that revealed in the

hearing. In its injunction, the Constitutional

Court stipulated the correct vote acquisition

of vote with the majority vote being acquired

by candidate pair number 3, Rusli Sibua and

Weni R. Paraisu, with 11,384 (eleven thousand

three hundred and eighty-four) votes.

In addition, the Constitutional Court in itsdecision of the case No.59/PHPU.D-IX/2011,

dated December 19, 2011, declared the

cancellation of the vote acquisition of

Candidate Pair Number 3 of H. David

Bobihoe Akib and H. Nelson Pomalingo in

the General Election of the Regional Head

of Gorontalo Province 2011, with 105,148

(one hundred five thousand one hundred and

forty-eight) votes that obtained from Gorontalo

Regency. The Constitutional Court stipulated

the correct vote acquisition each candidate

pair (3 candidate pairs) participating in the


Gorontalo Province 2011 with the majority

vote acquisition by candidate pair number 1

of H. Rusli Habibie and H. Idris Rahim, with

264,011 (two hundred sixty four thousand

and eleven) votes. The Constitutional Court

ordered the General Election Commission

of Gorontalo Province to correct DecisionNumber 22/Kpts/Pilgub/KPU-Prov-027/2011

concerning Stipulation of the Results of

the Vote Acquisition Recapitulation of the

General Election of the Regional Head and

Vice Regional Head of Gorontalo Province

2011, dated November 23, 2011, according

to this injunction as the final result of the


Gorontalo Province 2011.




Pancasila Education




Article 24C paragraph (1) and paragraph

(2) of the 1945 Constitution constitutes

the constitutional basis of the

authorities of the Constitutional Court. This

independent judicial institution that holds

judicial power for enforcing the law and

justice has 4 (four) constitutional authorities

and 1 (one) constitutional obligation. Article

24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution explicitlymentions the four authorities, namely: to

conduct judicial review of Laws under the

Constitution, to decide upon disputes over the

authority of state institutions whose authority

is granted by the Constitution, to dissolve

political parties and to decide upon disputes

over the results of general elections.

In the course of its development, Regional

Head General Election is considered as the

General Elections regime. It was subsequently

regulated by Law No. 12 Year 2008 concerning

the Second Amendment to Law No. 32 Year

2004 concerning Regional Government and

Law No. 22 Year 2007 concerning General

Election Organizers. In essence, the regulation

states that the handling of Disputes over the

Results of Regional Head Election (Pemilukada)

by the Supreme Court is to be delegated to

the Constitutional Court by no later than 18months following the enactment of the law.

Finally, on October 29, 2008, the Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice

of the Constitutional Court jointly signed

the Minutes of the Delegation of Authority

to Hear Cases, as the implementation of

Article 236C of Law No.12 Year 2008, so

that since then, the institution being the

guardian of the constitution has practically

been exercising the authority which used to

be exercised by the Supreme Court.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATISTICS

Chief Justice of TheConstitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD, and ChiefJustice of the SupremeCourt Bagir Manan, shookhands after signing thetransfer of authority to heardisputes over the results ofthe General Election of theRegional Head (29/10/2008).

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court]









Meanwhile, 1 (one) constitutional obligation

of the Constitutional Court as set forth

in Article 7B and Article 24C paragraph

(2) of the 1945 Constitution is that the

Constitutional Court shall pass a decision

upon the opinion of the People’s Legislative

Assembly whether the President and/or Vice

President has/have violated the law in the

form of treason against the state, corruption,

bribery, other felonies, or despicable act orhe/she is proved to have not meet the

requirements to be a President and / or

Vice President.

Since its establishment on August 13, 2003,

the Constitutional Court has handled three

constitutional authorities, namely: (1) to

conduct judicial review of laws under the

Constitution (UU); (2) to decide upon disputes

over the authority of state institutions (SKLN);

and (3) to decide upon disputes over theresults of General Elections (Pemilu) (PHPU).

Therefore, in relation to the case of the

dissolution of political parties and the

obligation to decide upon violations by the

President and/or Vice President according

to the Constitution, until the end of 2011,

the Constitutional Court had never handled

it because there no petition had been filed

on such case.

In exercising its constitutional authority

pursuant to the 1945 Constitution and Law No.


Court, as amended by Law No. 8 Year

2011 concerning Amendment to Law Number


Court, the Constitutional Court then regulates

further matters required for the uninterrupted

performance of its constitutional duties and

authority in the form of the Regulations of

the Constitutional Court (PMK). PMK functions

as the guidelines on legal proceedings to

fill the absence of the procedural law in

the Constitutional Court and to elucidate

the existing norms. The Regulations of the

Constitutional Court (PMK) are, among other

things, as follows:

1. PMK Number 06/PMK/2005 concerning

the Guidelines on the Legal Proceedings

in Judicial Review Cases;

2. PMK Number 08/PMK/2006 concerning


in Disputes over Constitutional Authorities

of State Institutions;

3. PMK Number 12 Year 2008 concerning

the Procedures on the Legal Proceedings

in the Dissolution of Political Parties;



in Disputes over the Results of Regional

Head Elections;



in Disputes over the Results of General

Election of the Members of the People’s

Legislative Assembly, the Regional

Representative Council and the Regional

People’s Legislative Assembly;

6. PMK Number 17 Year 2009 concerning the

Guidelines on the Legal Proceedings in

Disputes over the Results of General Elections

of the President and the Vice President;


the Guidelines on Electronic Submission of

Petitions (Electronic Filing) and Examination

of Cases through Video Conference;


the Hearing Rules of Procedure.



in Passing the Decision on the Opinion of

the People’s Legislative Assembly regarding

Alleged Violations by the President and/

or the Vice President according to the

1945 Constitution.




Pancasila Education




In connection with the implementation of such authorities since 2003 until 2011 the Constitutional

Court registered 940 cases. Out of this number, there were 414 judicial review of law cases

(44%), 18 cases of Disputes over the Authorities of State Institutions (2%), 116 cases of Dispute

over the Results of the General Election cases of Legislative and the President/Vice President

(12%), as well as 392 other cases related to Dispute over the Results of the General Election

of the Regional Head and Deputy of the Regional Head (42%). (See Chart 1)

In 2011, the Constitutional Court had registered 224 cases. Out of this number, there were 86

cases (38%) of Judicial Review of Law, 6 cases (3%) of Disputes over the Authorities of State

Institutions, and 132 cases (59%) of Dispute over the Results of the General Election of the

Regional Head and Deputy of the Regional Head. (See Chart 2)

Chart 1Total of Registered Cases Year 2003 up to 2011

■ Judicial Review of Law

■ Dispute over the Authorities of StateInstitutions

■ Dispute over the Results of Legislativeand Presidential General Elections

■ Dispute over the Results of the GeneralElection of the Regional Head andDeputy of the Regional Head

42% 44%

12% 2 %

Chart 2Total of Registered Cases in 2011

■ Judicial Review of Law

■ Dispute over the Authorities of StateInstitutions

■ Dispute over the Results of the GeneralElection of the Regional Head andDeputy of the Regional Head

59%

38%

3 %









The number of registered cases of Judicial Review of Law almost always increased every year,

despite the decrease in 2005. The number of registered cases of Judicial Review significantly

increased in 2009 and 2010, namely by 78 cases and 81 cases respectively. The trend of the

increasing number of registered cases in the Constitutional Court continued in 2011. Until the

end of 2011, the Constitutional Court had registered as many as 86 Cases of Judicial Review

of Law. More details can be seen in Chart 3.

Meanwhile, there was only a small number of cases of Dispute over the Authorities of State

Institutions (SKLN petitioned to the Constitutional Court, even in 2003 and 2009, when there

was no case of Disputes over the Authorities of State Institutions being registered by the

Constitutional Court. Nevertheless in 2006, there were 4 cases of Disputes over the Authorities

of State Institutions registered by the Constitutional Court. As for 2011, 6 cases were registered.

In other words, this amount has been the highest number of registered cases of Dispute over

the Authorities of State Institutions in one year. If it was totaled, the total number of registered

cases of Dispute over the Authorities of State Institutions from 2003 until the end of 2011 was

18 cases (see Chart 4)

Chart 3

Total Number of Registered Cases of Judicial Reviewin 2003 up to 2010

Chart 4

Total Number of Registered Cases of Dispute over the Authorities of State Institutionsin 2003 up to 2010

78

3630

27252724

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

868178

36

253027 2724

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

6

1

0

3

2

4

11

0

6

111

3

4

00

2




Pancasila Education




Chart 5

Total Number of Cases of Dispute over the Results of General Elections of Legislative Members and President/Vice President

in 2004 & 2009

Chart 6

Total Number of RegisteredCases of Dispute over the Results of Regional Head Electionsin 2008 up to 2011

Meanwhile, 45 cases were registered by the Constitutional Court in respect of Disputes over the

Results of General Election of the Legislative Members and the General Election of the President/

the Vice President in 2004. Meanwhile in 2009, the number increased with 71 registered cases

(see Chart 5)

The number of cases of Dispute over the Results of the General Election of the Regional Headsignificantly increased in 2010, namely with 230 registered cases, compared to 27 cases and

3 cases registered in 2008 and 2009. Of course, the number of registered cases is strongly

influenced by the implementation of the General Election every year. In general, the number of the

registered cases in the Constitutional Court is proportionate with the number of General Elections

of the regional head implemented throughout the regions of Indonesia. The more General Elections

implemented, the more the number of registered cases of Dispute over the General Election of

the Regional Head to the Constitutional Court. In fact, in 2011, the Constitutional Court registered

132 cases of Dispute over the General Election of the Regional Head. (See Chart 6)

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 9

45

71

45

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

12 6

23 0

327

132

230

273









In performing its authority, the Constitutional

Court has received petitions from many parties.

Out of those petitions, some petitions meet

the administrative requirements pursuant to

the provisions of Law Number 24 Year 2003

concerning Constitutional Court as amended

by the Law Number 8 Year 2011 concerning

amendment to Law Number 24 Year 2003

concerning Constitutional Court, some others

fail to meet the requirements.

Throughout 2011, the Constitutional Court

received both the petitions meeting the

administrative requirements and those failing

to meet the administrative requirements.

As a whole, the total number of petitions

received was 256 petitions in three types

of cases handled.

From all the petitions, only 244 petitions

(88%) were registered by the Constitutional

Court, while the remaining 32 petitions (12%)

were not registered. (See Chart 7)

Out of 224 registered cases, 86 petitions

were for Judicial Review (38%), 6 petitions

of dispute over the authorities of state

institutions (3%) and 132 petitions of Dispute

over the Results of Regional Head General

Election (59%) (see Chart 8)

Petition Admission and Case Registration

88%

12%

Chart 7Number of Petition in 2011

■ Unregistered Petitions■

Registered Petitions

Chart 8Number of Registered Petitions

Based on the Authoritiesin 2011

■ Judicial Review■ Dispute over the Authorities of State

Institutions of Law■ Dispute over the Results of the General

Election of the Regional Head andDeputy of the Regional Head

59%

38%

3 %

As to the unregistered petitions, out of the 32

cases, some were related to the authority of

the Constitutional Court and some others were

outside the authorities of the Constitutional

Court. There were several reasons why the

petitions were not registered. For the petition

which were not under the authority of the

Constitutional Court, of which were related

to the judicial review of the decisions of

government institutions, request for edict,

lawsuits on labor matters, inheritance, and

matters of court’s decisions. In addition, in

relation to the Dispute over the Results of

the General Election of the Regional Head,




Pancasila Education




the petitions were not registered because,

among other things, they had exceeded the

grace period and also because the decisions

had been passed upon them.

For cases registered throughout 2011, cases

of the Dispute over the Results of the

General Election of the Regional Head were

still dominant, namely with 132 cases or 59%

out of all registered cases. This was due

to, among other things, the great number

of General Elections of the Regional Head

implemented in Indonesia throughout 2011.

Referring to the schedule of General Elections

by the General Elections Commission (KPU),

in 2011, General Elections were scheduled

to be implemented in 107 areas in all

regions in Indonesia, with the details: in 11

Provinces, 20 Cities, and 76 Regencies. Until

the end of December, the General Elections

of the Regional Head implemented in allregions (provinces, districts, or cities) had

reached the number of 92 areas. Out of

this number, 81 areas (88.04%) were disputed

to the Constitutional Court.

It was also influenced by the decision of

the Constitutional Court in case number 196-

197-198/PHPU.DVIII/2010 concerning Dispute

over the Results of the General Election of

the Regional Head of Jayapura City, which

granted legal standing as the petitioner to

a “candidate pair”. Thus, the implication was

that prospective candidate pairs would be able

to become petitioners in cases of Dispute

over the Results of the General Election

of the Regional Head. In fact, 25 petitions

were submitted to the Constitutional Court

by prospective candidate pairs.

In relation to judicial review of Law, in

practice, many petitions were submitted to

the Constitutional Court that were concernedwith of constitutional rights rather than

The atmosphere of theHearing of Case No.196-197-198/PHPU.D-VIII/2010 concerningDispute over theResults of the GeneralElection of the RegionalHead of Jayapura City.In this Decision, theConstitutional Court forthe rst time grantedthe Legal Standing ofthe candidate pair.

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Andhini SF]









the authority of the Constitutional Court

to resolve, so it was declared that the

petitions “cannot be accepted” (niet

ontvankelijk verklaard) or were not registered.

According to the records of the Registrar’s

Office of the Constitutional Court, some

petitioners were substantially the so-called

constitutional complaints. One example was

related to the case of Pollycarpus where

he had experienced hearings with the wronglaw of procedure, while the decision was

reached at the supreme court appeal level.

When filed to the Constitutional Court, the

petition could not be acted upon by the

Constitutional Court. The reason was that the

Constitutional Court was not competent to

hear the case. With respect to this matter,

the Constitutional Court has conducted a

comprehensive and in-depth study involving

academics, legal experts and interested

parties to examine further the urgency of

the existence of constitutional complaint (CC)

and the constitutional question (CQ) in the

law enforcement system in Indonesia.

Based on case registration data from 2003

to 2011, the number of cases registered with

the Constitutional Court seemed to increase.

Although declining in 2005, but the upwardtrend in the number of registered cases was

consistent from year to year. However, despite

the significant increase in 2010, namely to

break the number of 312 registered cases,

there was a slight decline this year, namely

224 cases. This was inseparable from the

number of General Elections implemented

which was also less than the number in

2010. (See Chart 9)

The atmosphere atthe Petition Admissionand Case Registration

room. It can be seen thePetitioners, Saldi Isra and

friends, registering theirpetition.





Pancasila Education




24

73

26 31 32

66

152

312

218

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

312

224

73

24 26 31 32

66

152

Chart 9

Number of Cases registered bythe Constitutional Court

in 2003 up to 2011

Case Settlement


also settled the cases of judicial review of

law, Dispute over the authority of the state

institution and Dispute over the Results of

the General Election of Regional Head. In

the context of the handling of the cases,

especially cases of Judicial Review of Law,

the Constitutional Court attempted to resolve

the matters dealt with in a relatively short

time. This was important in order to provide

clarity and legal certainty in relation to the

constitutionality of the Law were reviewed, in

addition to realizing a speedy and simple

administration of justice.

However, it must be admitted, the time

required by the Constitutional Court in

deciding the cases, especially cases of Judicial

Review of Law, varied because the time for

completing Judicial Review is not expressly

limited by law. In addition, the Constitutional

Court will also need to prioritize settlement

of PHPU of Regional Head within a limited

time as determined by the Law for their

settlement, which is 14 days since the

registration of the case. This is in addition

to the relatively great number of cases of

Dispute over the Results of General Election

of Regional Head to be resolved.

The time needed to complete a case

judicial review also depends on the extent

of urgency and how urgently the law affects

public interest. In addition, the duration of

examination of a case of judicial review is

also influenced by the degree of sensitivity

of and controversy in a law. In addition,

some cases with a higher difficulty level thus

require a longer inspection process. As a

result, the settlement period is longer than

that for other cases.

Another factor is that the settlement of the

Judicial Review of Law is also influenced

by the needs of the parties. For instance,

the Constitutional Court once conducted

examination hearings more than four times.

This was because the Constitutional Court









Parties attended thehearing of Case No. 62/

PUU-IX/2011. Seen inattendance were MualiminAbdi from the Ministry of

Justice and Human Rights,the Deputy Minister of

Justice and Human RightsDenny Indrayana, as wellas the chief the national

police Timur Pradopo.


had to adjust to the demands of the litigants

to present witnesses and experts in order

to support their respective arguments. This

was done also in order to provide equal

opportunities and rights to the parties to be

heard in the courtroom, as the implementation

of the principle of audi alteram partem.

In addition, throughout 2011, the Constitutional

Court decided upon two cases of judicial

review of law in a very short time, namely

for less than a week. These two cases were

Case No. 20/PUUIX/2011 related to Judicial

Review of Law Number 5 year 1960 concerning

basic regulations on agrarian principles and

Case No. 24/PUU-IX/2011 related to Judicial

Review of the Supreme Court Decision No.

301 K/Pdt/204.

Meanwhile, 7 cases of Judicial Review required

a completion time of more than 200 days.

The longest time was for the settlement of

Case No. 2/PUU-IX/2011 related to Judicial

Review of Law No. 18 year 2009 concerning

Livestock and Animal Health, and Case No.

3/PUU-IX/2011 related to Judicial Review of

Law No. 31 year 1999 concerning Eradication

of the Criminal Act of Corruption with each

being completed in 276 days.

Meanwhile, from 2003 to 2011, 154 Laws

were reviewed by the Constitutional Court.

Out of these cases, 2 laws were the most

frequently reviewed, namely Law no. 32 year

2004 concerning Regional Government which

had been reviewed for 30 times, and Law No.

10 year 2008 concerning the General Election

of the Members of the People’s Legislative

Assembly, the Regional Representative Council

and the Regional People’s Legislative Assembly

which had been reviewed for 24 times. (See

Table 1)









26 Law Number 15 Year 2006 concerning the Audit Board 1

27 Law Number 15 Year 2011 concerning General Elec on Organizer 2

28 Law Number 16 Year 2003 concerning the S pula on of governmentregula on in lieu of law No. 2 Year 2002 concerning the Establishment ofLaw no. 15 Year 2002 Jo. government regula on in lieu of law No. 1 Year2002 concerning the Eradica on of the Criminal Acts of Terrorism

1

29 Law Number 16 Year 2004 concerning Prosecutor's O ce under the1945 Cons tu on of the Republic of Indonesia

4

30 Law Number 16 Year 2008 concerning Amendment to Law Number 45Year 2007 concerning State Revenues and Expenditures Budget Year 2008

1

31 Law Number 17 Year 2003 concerning Law Number 17 Year 2003concerning Financial of the State

1

32 Law Number 17 Year 2006 concerning Customs 1

33 Law Number 17 Year 2007 concerning Na onal Long-Term DevelopmentPlan 2005-2025

1

34 Law Number 17 Year 2008 concerning Mari me A airs 1

35 Law Number 18 Year 2003 concerning Advocates 9

36 Law Number 18 Year 2004 concerning Planta on 1

37 Law Number 18 Year 2006 concerning State Revenues and Expenditures

Budget for Fiscal Year 2007

2

38 Law Number 18 Year 2009 concerning Livestock and Animal Health 2

39 Law Number 19 Year 2003 concerning State Owned Enterprises 1

40 Law Number 19 Year 2004 concerning Forestry 3

41 Law Number 19 Year 2008 concerning Government Sharia Securi es 1

42 Law Number 1 Year 1946 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) 10

43 Law Number 1 Year 1965 concerning Abuse and/or Desecra on of Religions 144 Law Number 1 Year 1974 concerning Marriage 3

45 Law Number 1 Year 1979 concerning Extradi on, 1

46 Law Number 1 Year 1987 concerning Chamber of Commerce and Industry 1

47 Law Number 1 Year 2002 concerning the Eradica on of Criminal Actsof Terrorism

1

48 Law Number 1 Year 2004 concerning State Treasury 3

49 Law Number 20 Year 2000 concerning Amendment to Law Number 21Year 1997 concerning Du es for the Acquisi on of the Rights to Landand Buildings

3

50 Law Number 20 Year 2001 concerning Amendment to Law Number 31Year 1999 concerning the Eradica on of Criminal Acts of Corrup on

1

51 Law Number 20 Year 2002 concerning Electricity 2

52 Law Number 20 Year 2003 concerning Na onal Educa on System 10

53 Law Number 20 Year 2009 concerning Title, Decora ons, and Mark of Honor 2

54 Law Number 21 Year 2000 concerning Workers/Labor Union 1

55 Law Number 21 Year 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for Papua Province 4




Pancasila Education




56 Law Number 21 Year 2008 concerning Sharia banking 1

57 Law Number 22 Year 1997 concerning Narco cs 2

58 Law Number 22 Year 1999 concerning Regional Government 1

59 Law Number 22 Year 2001 concerning Oil and Gas 2

60 Law Number 22 Year 2003 concerning Organiza onal Structure andStatus of the People’s Consultative Assembly, People’s LegislativeAssembly, the Regional Representa ve Council and Regional People’sLegisla ve Assembly

3

61 Law Number 22 Year 2004 concerning Judicial Commission 4

62 Law Number 22 Year 2007 concerning General Elec on Organizers 4

63 Law Number 22 Year 2009 concerning Tra c and Transporta on 1

64 Law Number 23 Year 2002 concerning Children Protec on 1

65 Law Number 23 Year 2003 concerning General Elec on of the Presidentand Vice President

8

66 Law Number 24 Year 2002 concerning government securi es 1

67 Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerning the Cons tu onal Court 10

68 Law Number 25 Year 1992 concerning Coopera ves 1

69 Law Number 25 Year 2007 concerning Capital Investment 2

70 Law Number 25 Year 2009 concerning Public Services 1

71 Law Number 26 Year 2000 concerning the Human Rights Court 3

72 Law Number 26 Year 2004 concerning the Establishment of WestSulawesi Province

1

73 Law Number 27 Year 2004 concerning the Commission for Truth andReconcilia on

2

74 Law Number 27 Year 2007 concerning management of coastal areasand small islands

1

75 Law Number 27 Year 2009 concerning the People's ConsultativeAssembly, the People's Legisla ve Assembly and the Regional People'sLegisla ve Assembly

12

76 Law Number 28 Year 2007 concerning Third Amendment to Law Number26 Year 1982 concerning General Provisions and Procedures of Taxa on

1

77 Law Number 28 Year 2009 concerning Regional Taxes and Retribu ons 278 Law Number 29 Year 2004 concerning Medical Prac ces 1

79 Law Number 29 Year 2007 concerning the Government of the SpecialCapital City Region of Jakarta

1

80 Law Number 2 Year 1964 concerning Implemen ng Procedures ofDeath Penalty

1

81 Law Number 2 Year 2002 concerning Na onal Police of the Republicof Indonesia

2

82 Law Number 2 Year 2003 concerning the Establishment of Tanah BumbuRegency and Balangan Regency in South Kalimantan Province

1

83 Law Number 2 Year 2008 concerning Poli cal Par es 3









Furthermore, out of all decisions on cases of the judicial review of law granted since 2003 up

to 2011, the Constitutional Court declared 5 Laws without any binding effect as a whole (seeTable 2) and 52 Laws were cancelled partly (see Table 3).

Table 2

Laws which were Cancelled Entirelyin 2003 up to 2011

No Laws

1 Law No. 16 Year 2003 concerning the S pula on of Government Regula on No. 2 Year2002 concerning Formula on of Law No. 15 year 2002 Jo. Government Regula on in lieuof Law No. 1 year 2002 concerning Eradica on of the Criminal Acts of Terrorism

2 Law No. 20 Year 2002 concerning Electricity

136 Law Number 5 Year 1960 concerning Basic Regula ons on Agrarian Principles 2

137 Law Number 5 Year 1986 concerning State Administra ve Court 1

138 Law Number 5 Year 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 14Year 1985 concerning the Supreme Court

5

139 Law Number 6 Year 1954 concerning the S pula on of the Right ofInquiry of the People’s Legisla ve Assembly

1

140 Law Number 6 Year 1974 concerning Basic Provisions on Social Welfare 1

141 Law Number 6 Year 2009 concerning S pula on of the Government

Regula on in lieu of Law No. 2 Year 2008 concerning Second Amendmentto Law Number 23 Year 1999 concerning Bank Indonesia

1

142 Law Number 6 Year 2011 concerning Immigra on 2

143 Law Number 73 Year 2004 concerning the Posi on of Notary 1

144 Law Number 7 Year 1974 concerning Eradica on of Gambling 2

145 Law Number 7 Year 1989 concerning Religious Court 2

146 Law Number 7 Year 1992 concerning Banking as amended by Lawnumber 10/1998

1

147 Law Number 7 Year 2004 concerning Water Resources 5148 Law Number 8 Year 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code 17

149 Law Number 8 Year 1992 concerning Film 1

150 Law Number 8 Year 1999 concerning Consumer Protec on 1151 Law Number 8 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Law Number 24

Year 2003 concerning the Cons tu onal Court6

152 Law Number 9 Year 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 5Year 1986 concerning State Administra ve Court

1

153 Law Number 9 Year 2009 concerning Educa on Legal En ty 3

154 Decision of the Supreme Court Number 301 K/Pdt/204. (concerningland/agrarian a airs)

1




Pancasila Education




Table 3

Laws which were Cancelled Partly

in 2003 up to 2011

No Laws

1 Law Number 10 Year 2008 concerning the General Elec on of the Members of the People'sLegisla ve Assembly, the Regional Representa ve Council and the Regional People'slegisla ve Assembly

2 Law Number 11 Year 2006 concerning Aceh Government3 Law Number 11 Year 2008 concerning Electronic Informa on and Transac on

4Law Number 12 Year 2003 concerning the General Elec on of the Members of the People'sLegisla ve Assembly, the Regional Representa ve Council and the Regional People'sLegisla ve Assembly

5 Law Number 12 Year 2008 concerning Regional Government6 Law Number 13 Year 2003 concerning Manpower

7Law Number 13 Year 2005 concerning State Revenues and Expenditures Budget for FiscalYear 2006

8 Law Number 16 Year 2004 the Safeguarding of Printed Goods Whose Contents MayDisturb Public Order Jo Law No. 5 Year 1969 concerning Declara on of Various Presiden alS pula ons and Regula ons as Laws

9 Law Number 16 Year 2008 concerning Amendment to Law Number 45 Year 2007 concerningBudget for Fiscal Year 2008

10 Law Number 18 Year 2003 concerning Advocates

11 Law Number 18 Year 2004 concerning Planta on

12Law Number 18 Year 2006 concerning State Revenues and Expenditures Budget for FiscalYear 2007

13 Law Number 18 Year 2009 concerning Livestock and Animal Health

14 Law Number 1 Year 1946 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP)15 Law Number 1 Year 1987 concerning the Chamber of Commerce and Industry16 Law Number 20 Year 2002 concerning Electricity17 Law Number 20 Year 2003 concerning Na onal Educa on System18 Law Number 21 Year 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for Papua Province

19 Law Number 22 Year 2001 concerning Oil and Gas20 Law Number 22 Year 2004 concerning the Judicial Commission

21 Law Number 22 Year 2007 concerning General Elec on Implementa on22 Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerning the Cons tu onal Court23 Law Number 25 Year 2007 concerning Capital Investment24 Law Number 25 Year 2009 concerning Public Services25 Law Number 26 Year 2000 concerning the Human Rights Court

3 Law No. 27 Year 2004 concerning Commission for Truth and Reconcilia on4 Law No. 45 Year 1999 concerning Establishment of Central Irian Jaya Province, West Irian Jaya

Province, Paniai Regency, Timika Regency and Puncak Jaya Regency, and Sorong City5 Law No. 9 Year 2009 concerning Educa on Legal En es









26 Law Number 27 Year 2007 concerning the Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands

27 Law Number 27 Year 2009 concerning the People's Consulta ve Assembly, the People'sLegisla ve Assembly and the Regional People's Legisla ve Assembly

28 Law Number 29 Year 2004 concerning Medical Prac ces

29 Law Number 2 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Law Number 2 Year 2008 concerningPoli cal Par es

30 Law Number 30 Year 2002 concerning the Commission for the Eradica on of CriminalActs of Corrup on

31 Law Number 31 Year 1999 concerning the Eradica on of Criminal Acts of Corrup on32 Law Number 32 Year 2002 concerning Broadcas ng33 Law Number 32 Year 2004 concerning Regional Government

34 Law Number 35 Year 2008 S pula on of Government Regula on in lieu of Law Number1 Year 2008 concerning Amendment to Law Number 21 Year 2001 concerning SpecialAutonomy for Papua Province Become Law.

35 Law Number 35 Year 2009 concerning Narco cs

36 Law Number 36 Year 2009 concerning Health

37 Law Number 37 Year 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Se lementObliga on

38 Law Number 37 Year 2008 concerning Ombudsman

39 Law Number 39 Year 2004 concerning Placement and Protec on of Indonesian Migrant Workers

40 Law Number 39 Year 2007 concerning Amendment to Law Number 11 Year 1995 concerningExcise

41 Law Number 3 Year 1997 concerning Juvenile Court

42 Law Number 40 Year 2003 concerning Establishment of Eastern Seram Regency, WesternSeram Regency and Aru Regency in Maluku Province

43 Law Number 40 Year 2004 concerning the Na onal Social Security System

44 Law Number 42 Year 2008 concerning General Elec ons of the President and the Vice President

45 Law Number 4PNPS Year 1963 concerning the Safeguarding of Printed Goods WhoseContents May Disturb Public Order

46 Law Number 51 Year 2009 concerning Criminal Procedure Code

47 Law Number 56 Year 2008 concerning Establishment of Tambrauw Regency in West PapuaProvince

48 Law Number 5 Year 2004 concerning Amendment to Law Number 14 Year 1985 concerningthe Supreme Court

49 Law Number 6 Year 1954 concerning the S pula on of the Right of Inquiry of the People’sLegisla ve Assembly

50 Law Number 8 Year 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code

51 Law Number 8 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerningthe Cons tu onal Court

52 Law Number 9 Year 2009 concerning Educa on Legal En ty




Pancasila Education




Meanwhile, for the cases of Dispute over the Results of General Election of Regional Head, as

we know it, the settlement time limit has been determined by Laws, which must be decided

upon in 14 days after registration. Therefore, in order to carry out the mandate of the Law,

until now, the Constitutional Court has always decided the cases of Dispute over the Results of

General Election of Regional Head within the period of less than or in 14 days.

Injunctions

In terms of decisions, for the handling of the cases in 2011, the Constitutional Court completed

229 cases out of all cases handled in 2011 (including the remaining cases of the previous year.For information, the total number of cases in 2011 was 290 cases. Thus, the number of cases

still in the process until the end 2011 totaled of 61 cases for all areas of authority.

Meanwhile, if based on the injunctions of decision, the Constitutional Court has passed the

decisions, as follows: 36 cases were granted (16%), 114 cases were rejected (50%), 68 cases

could not be accepted (29%), and 11 cases were withdrawn (5%). (See Chart 10)

Chart 10

Number of Cases decided upon by the Constitutional Courtin 2011

■ Granted

■ Rejected

■ Cannot Be Accepted

■ Withdrawn

29%

50%

16%5 %









Nine Constitutional CourtJustices seemed to be

reading the decision in thePlenary Court Room of the



Case Handling

Judicial Review of Law

Authority for conducting judicial review of

constitutionality of laws (judicial review/

constitutional review) in the Constitutional

Court is guided by the provisions of the Law.

The constitutional basis Article 24C paragraph

(1) of the 1945 Constitution. Then the

authority is regulated in its derivative, namely

Article 10 of Law No.24 of 2003 concerning

the Constitutional Court, as amended by Law

No. 8 Year 2011 concerning Amendment of

Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerning the

Constitutional Court. Subsequent implementing

techniques are regulated by Constitutional

Court Regulation Number 06 Year 2005

concerning Guidelines on the Proceedings

for Cases of Judicial Review.

It can be said that petition for judicial

review itself is divided into two types: first,

review of the substantive contents of lawsand regulations or the legal norm, commonly

material review, and second, review of the

procedures of formulation of legislation

products, commonly referred to as formal

review. In practice, material review and formal

review can be performed simultaneously by

the same Petitioner.




Pancasila Education




Out of the 94 cases already decided, the Constitutional Court passed decisions the details of

the decisions: 21 cases (22%) were granted, 29 cases (31%) were rejected, and 35 cases (37%)

could not be accepted, and 9 cases (10%) were withdrawn. (See Chart 12)

Chart 11

Number of Judicial Review Cases Handled by the Constitutional CourtIn 2011

65%

35%■ Have Not Been Decided

■ Have Been Decided

Chart 12

Number of Judicial Review Cases Decided Upon by the Constitutional CourtBased on Injunctions

in 2011

■ Granted■ Rejected■ Cannot Be Accepted■ Withdrawn

22%

31%

10%

37%

In relation to the handling of cases of judicial review, the Constitutional Court has handled

145 cases, which consisted of 86 cases registered in 2011 and the remaining 59 cases in

2010. Out of these numbers, the Constitutional Court has decided 94 cases (65%), whereas the

percentage of cases of judicial review which have not been decided is 35 percent or 51 cases.

(See Chart 11)









If calculated in terms of frequency of judicial review, during the year 2011, the Constitutional Court

conducted judicial review of 21 cases. The most frequently petitioned Law in the Constitutional

Court in 2011, namely for 6 (six) times was Law No. 8 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to

Law Number 24 year 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court. (See table 4)

Table 4

Frequency of Laws being Reviewed

in 2011

1 Law Number 11 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Law No.10 Year2010 concerning State Revenues and Expenditures Budget 2011

1

2 Law Number 12 Year 2010 concerning Scout Movement 1

3 Law Number 13 Year 1985 concerning Stamp Duty 1

4 Law Number 15 Year 2011 concerning General Elec on Organizers 25 Law Number 17 Year 2003 concerning Law Number 17 Year 2003

concerning State Finances1

6 Law Number 17 Year 2007 concerning Na onal Long-Term DevelopmentPlan 2005-2025

1

7 Law Number 21 Year 2000 concerning Workers/Labor Union 1

8 Law Number 25 Year 1992 concerning Law Number 25 Year 1992Concerning Coopera ves

1

9 Law Number 28 Year 2009 concerning Regional Taxes andRetribu ons

2

10 Law Number 2 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Law Number 2Year 2008 concerning Poli cal Par es

3

11 Law Number 33 Year 2004 concerning Balanced Finances between theCentral Government and Regional Governments

2

12 Law Number 35 Year 2008 concerning S pula on of GovernmentRegula on in lieu of Law Number 1 Year 2008 concerning Amendmentto Law Number 21 Year 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for the

Papua Province to Become Law.

1

13 Law Number 35 Year 2009 concerning Narco cs 114 Law Number 38 Year 2008 concerning the S pula on of the Charter

of The Associa on Of Southeast Asian Na ons1

15 Law Number 3 Year 2008 concerning Employee Social Security 1

16 Law Number 51 Year 2009 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code 117 Law Number 5 Year 1960 concerning Basic Regula ons on Agrarian

Principles2

18 Law Number 6 Year 2011 concerning Immigra on 219 Law Number 7 Year 1992 concerning Banking as amended by Law

Number 10/19981

20 Law Number 8 Year 1999 concerning Consumer Protec on 121 Law Number 8 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Law Number 24Year 2003 Concerning the Cons tu onal Court

6

No Laws Frequency









Number 12 Year 2008 regarding Second

Amendment to Law Number 32 Year 2004

regarding Regional Government. This article

reads, “The handling of disputes over vote

count results in the election of regional head

shall be delegated by the Supreme Court

transferred to the Constitutional Court by

no later than 18 (eighteen) months following

the enactment of this Law.”

Therefore, on October 29, 2008, the Chief

Justice of the Constitutional Court and the

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court jointly

signed the Minutes of the delegation of

authority in passing decisions upon cases

of Dispute over the Results of General

Election of Regional Head. Thus, the handling

of disputes over the results of general

election of regional head is the authority

of the Constitutional Court to examine,

hear, and decide upon. Accordingly, theConstitutional Court began the hearing of

the cases of Regional Head General Election

in 2008. The technical proceedings are more

specifically regulated in the Regulation of

the Constitutional Court (PMK) Number 15

Year 2008 concerning Guidelines on the

Proceedings in Disputes over the Results

General Election of Regional Head.

As for the handling of cases of dispute over

the results of general election of regional

head throughout 2011, out of 138 cases

(consisting of 6 remaining from 2010 and

132 cases registered in 2011), the Court

passed a total of 131 decisions. In other

words, the Constitutional Court only had 7

(seven) cases of Dispute over the Results of

General Election of Regional Head.

Out of the cases which decided upon: 15

cases (11%) were granted, 85 cases (65%)

were rejected, 29 cases (22%) could not be

accepted, and 2 cases (2%) were withdrawn.(See Chart 13).

Chart 13

Number of Decisions on the Results

of the General Election

of Regional Head based on Injunctions

In 2011

■ Granted■ Rejected

11%

65%

2 %

22%

■ Cannot Be Accepted■ Withdrawn




Pancasila Education




Table 5List of Interlocutory Injunctions in 2011

No Case Number Law Date of Decision

1 10/PHPU.D IX/2011 Dispute over the Results of the General Elec on ofthe Regional Head and Deputy of Regional Head

of Cianjur Regency Year 2011

16-02-2011

2 63/PHPU.D IX/2011 Dispute over the Results of the General Elec on ofthe Regional Head and Deputy of Regional Headof Pekanbaru City Year 2011

24-06-2011

3 108/PHPU.DIX/2011

Pe on for the Cancela on of the Decision of theIndependent Elec on Commission (KIP) of Aceh No.1Year 2011 jo Decision No 11 Year 2011 jo DecisionNo 17 Year 2011 concerning the Stages, Programsand Schedule of the Implementa on of GeneralElec ons of Governor / Vice Governor, Regent/Vice Regent of the Regional Head General Elec onof Aceh, Mayor/Vice Mayor in Aceh Province

24-11-2011

4 125/PHPU.DIX/2011 Petition of Objection to the Minutes of theRecapitulation of the Vote Court Results ofthe General Elec on of Regional Head of WestSoutheast Maluku Regency Year 2011 datedNovember 27, 2011 and Decision of the GeneralElec on Commission of West Southeast MalukuRegency Number 32/Kpts/KPU-Kab.MTB/2011 Year2011 concerning the S pula on of the Vote CourtRecapitula on Results of the General Elec on of theRegional Head of West Southeast Maluku RegencyYear 2011 dated November 27, 2011

23-12-2011

5 124/PHPU.DIX/2011

Dispute over the Results of the General Elec on ofthe Regional Head and Deputy of Regional Head of

West Southeast Maluku Regency Year 2011

23-12-2011

6 31/PHPU.D IX/2011 Dispute over the Results of the General Elec on ofthe Regional Head and Deputy of Regional Headof Central Tapanuli Regency Year 2011

11-04-2011

7 32/PHPU.D IX/2011 Dispute over the Results of the General Elec on ofthe Regional Head and Deputy of Regional Headof Central Tapanuli Regency Year 2011

11-04-2011

Meanwhile in 2011 the Constitutional Court never received any petition related to Dispute over

the Results of General Election of Legislative Members or President/Vice President because, there

no election of legislative members and the President/Vice President was implemented. Thus, this

year, the Constitutional Court automatically did not register any petition of Dispute over theResults of General Election of the President/Vice President.

Terhadap 131 perkara yang dikabulkan tersebut, sebanyak 7 (tujuh) perkara melalui putusan sela,

sedangkan sisanya tanpa melalui putusan sela. (Lihat Tabel 5)









1. Judicial Review of Law

a. RPH 405

b. Panel Hearing 165

c. Plenary Hearing 211

Total 781

2. Dispute over the Results of the General Elec on of the Regional Head

a. RPH 45

b. Panel Hearing 349


Total 533

3. Dispute over the Authority of State Ins tu ons

a. RPH 1

b. Panel Hearing 11


Total 9

Hearings

Cases were handled by holding hearings and the Consultative Meeting of Justices (RPH). The

provision in Article 28 paragraph (4) of the Constitutional Court Law states before the plenary

session, the Court may form a Panel of Justices with least 3 constitutional court justices as

members to examine the case, with the results to be discussed in the Plenary Session in order

to make the decision. In practice, the decision is made in a Consultative Meeting of Justices

(RPH).

The hearing and RPH frequency table below shows that in carrying out its constitutional duties

during the year 2011, the Constitutional Court held 451 plenary sessions, 525 panel sessions, and

357 Consultative Meeting of Justices (RPH). Along with the increasing number of cases handled

by the Constitutional Court, then the number of hearings held by the Constitutional Court also

increased significantly. (See Table 6)

Table 6

Recapitulation of the Constitutional Court’s HearingsIn 2011

(Per December 23, 2011)

No HEARING/RPH Number

Hearings as well as Administration of Minutes and Decisions




Pancasila Education




Minutes of Hearings

All activities of the Constitutional Court’s hearings are open to the public, with both the Panel

and Plenary Sessions being set out in writing in the form of minutes of hearing containing the

records or discussions of the parties and constitutional court justices in the hearing.

Minutes of hearing functions to provide information support for constitutional court justices in

making a follow-up to the settlement and to make decisions; as material for the preparation

of the minutes of the substitute registrar in the hearing; information for the parties to prepare

for the next session; and preparation of news and press releases for the mass media. Giventhe importance of the minutes of hearing, the preparation of the minutes is determined to be

completed within a period of 1 x 24 hours after the hearing is completed.

Minutes is intended not only for internal purposes the Constitutional Court, but also in cases

of judicial review, the minutes of hearing was also presented to the parties, the Petitioners, the

Representatives of the People’s Legislative Assembly, and the Government in this regard the Ministry

of Justice and Human Rights. For the parties, the minutes can be used not only for following

the progress of the hearing, but also for preparing the conclusion of a case. For 2011, the

delivery of minutes to the parties fluctuated according to the frequency of the current month.

The minutes is intended not only for internal interest of the parties but, in accordance with

the functions, the minutes of hearing is also intended for documenting all discussions and thestatements in the hearing so that transparency is guaranteed, then the general public who wish

to know the hearing process of a cases either for legal purposes or for academic purposes,

may also ask for the minutes to the Constitutional Court. The number of request for minutes

of hearing each month in 2011 is set out in Table 7 as follows.

Table 7

Delivery of copies of minutes of hearingto the People’s Legislative Assembly, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights,

as well as the Petitioners

1 January 19 19 192 February 23 23 233 March 41 41 414 April 30 30 305 May 15 15 156 June 9 9 97 July 26 26 268 August 16 16 169 September 35 35 35

10 October 40 40 4011 November 31 31 31

12 December 21 21 21Total 306 306 306

No MonthPeople’s Legisla ve

AssemblyPe oners

Ministry of Law andHuman Rights









Copies of Decision

Article 49 of the Constitutional Court Law orders the Constitutional Court to send copies of the

decision to the parties within a period of 7 (seven) business days after the pronouncement of

the decision. However, in order to realize a fast and simple administration of justice, the copy

of a decision is provided to the parties shortly after the decision is pronounced in the plenary

session open to the public. Even to help people acquire the Constitutional Court decisions

quickly and accurately they can get by accessing and downloading them on the website of the

Constitutional Court at the address www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id immediately after the decision

is pronounced.

In addition to accessing and downloading them at the Constitutional Court website, the public can

also request copies of a decision to the Constitutional Court. People who ask for the decision

can be said to range from observers of the laws and constitution as well as academics requiring

the decision for a scientific study and as reference materials, up to the prospective petitioners

who want to learn about the legal considerations in the decision of the Constitutional Court

and the legal standing of the petitioners in the Constitutional Court so that later the petition

submitted will be acceptable. Throughout 2011, the number of requests for copies of the decisions

by the people is shown in table 8.

No MonthNumber of Decisions Passed

2010 2011

1 January 42 58

2 February 54 40

3 March 36 107

4 April 32 64

5 May 40 46

6 June 48 59

7 July 96 57

8 August 66 37

9 September 66 66

10 October 76 120

11 November 52 35

12 December 63 24

Total 671 713

Table 8

Recapitulation of Requests for Copies of Decisions by the PublicIn 2010-2011









Minutes-Making

Minutes-making or filings of case files is conducted as an effort of orderly administration in

order that the track record of original files of a case from the petition submission up to the

decision can be properly documented. The level of minutes-making in a month depends on the

time for the implementation and completion of the minutes-making. There are no regulations

governing it. This is because the great number of cases to be resolved by the Constitutional

Court, especially those with a limited time for resolution, such as election disputes. Therefore,

special time is usually reserved to complete the minutes-making so that in a certain month, the

number of minutes-making can be 2 (two) up to 5 (five) times higher than in any other monthwithout specifically reserved time, as illustrated in Table 10.

Table 10

Table of the Minutes-Making of Case Filesin 2011

No Month Number of Files

1 January 30

2 February 28

3 March 47

4 April 12

5 May 8

6 June 19

7 July 35

8 August 19

9 September 5

10 October 31

11 November 14

12 December 7

Total 255




Pancasila Education




NoNumber/Date of

DecisionNumber/Date ofO cial Gaze e

Substance of thePe on

Decision

Sent Received

Table 11Promulgation of the Decisions of the Constitutional Court in the Official Gazette

In 2011

Promulgation the Decisions in the Official Gazette

Article 57 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court determines that the decisions of the

Constitutional Court in the judicial review of law granting the petition shall be published in the

Official Gazette within a period of at least 30 (thirty) business days as from the pronouncement

of the decision. In line with these provisions, the Constitutional Court’s decisions have been

published in the Official Gazette. Promulgation of the Constitutional Court’s decisions in the Official

Gazette in 2011 is shown in table 11 below.

1 23-26/PUU-VIII/2010 January

12, 2011

No.4 Year 2011January 14,

2011

Judicial Reviewof Law No.

27 Year 2009concerning

the People'sConsulta ve

Assembly,the People's

Legisla veAssembly andthe Regional

People'sLegisla veAssembly

January 14,2011

January 14,2011

2 8/PUU-VIII/2010January 31, 2011

No. 9 Year 2011February 1, 2011

Judicial Reviewof Law No.6 Year 1954

concerning theRight of Inquiryof the People’s

Legisla veAssembly

February 4,2011

February 4,2011

3 1/PUU-VIII/2010February 24, 2011

No. 17 Year2011 March 1,

2011

Judicial Reviewof Law No.3 Year 1997concerning

Juvenile Court

March 1, 2011 March 1, 2011









4 5/PUU-VIII/2010February 24, 2011

No. 17 Year2011 March 1,

2011


11 Year 2008concerningElectronic

informa onand

Transac ons

March 1, 2011 March 1, 2011

5 3/PUU-VIII/2010June 16, 2011

No. 48 Year2011 June 17,

2011


27 Year 2007concerning theManagement

of CoastalAreas and

Small Islands

June 17, 2011 June 17, 2011

6 5/PUU-IX/2011June 20, 2011


2011


30 Year 2002concerningCorrup on

Eradica onCommission

June 21, 2011 June 21, 2011

7 12/PUU-IX/2011June 27, 2011


2011



Health

June 28, 2011 June 28, 2011

8 15/PUU-IX/2011July 4, 2011

No. 54 Year2011 July 8,

2011


Amendmentto Law No,2 Year 2008concerning

Poli cal Par es

July 5,2011

July 5,2011

9 35/PUU-IX/2011August 4, 2011

No. 62 Year2011 August 5,

2011


Amendmentto Law No,2 Year 2008

concerningPoli cal Par es

August 5, 2011 August 5, 2011




Pancasila Education




10 65/PUU-VIII/2010August 8, 2011

No. 63 Year2011 August 9,

2011


the CriminalProcedure

Code

August 9, 2011 August 9, 2011

11 62/PUU-VIII/2010August 23, 2011

No. 68 Year2011



Ombudsman ofthe Republic of

Indonesia

August 24,2011

August 24,2011

12 55/PUU-VIII/2010September 19,

2011

No. 69 Year2011


18 Year 2004concerningPlanta on

September 21,2011

September 21,2011

13 37/PUU-VIII/2010

September 19,2011

No. 69 Year

2011

Judicial Review

of Law No.13 Year 2003

concerningManpower

September 21,

2011

September 21,

2011

14 58/PUU-VIII/2010September 29,

2011

No. 78Year 2011

September 30,2011



Na onalEduca on

System

October 4,2011

October 4,2011

15 17/PUU-IXI/2011September 29,

2011

No. 79 Year2011 October 4,

2011



StateAdministra ve

Court andLaw No. 8Year 1981concerning

the CriminalProcedure

Code

October 4,2011

October 4,2011









16 29/PUU-IXI/2011September 29,

2011

No. 79 Year2011



S pula on ofGovernmentRegula on inlieu of LawNumber 1Year 2008concerning

Amendment toLaw Number21 Year 2001

concerningSpecial

Autonomyfor the Papua

Province

October 4,2011

October 4,2011

17 2/PUU-IX/2011October 6, 2010

No. 81 Year2011 October

11, 2011



Livestock andAnimal Health

[Ar cle 58paragraph (4)]

October 11,2011

October 11,2011

18 48/PUU-IX/2011October 18, 2011


21, 2011


Amendment toLaw Number

24 Year 2003concerning theCons tu onal

Court

October 19,2011

October 19,2011




Pancasila Education




19 49/PUU-IX/2011October 18, 2011


21, 2011


Amendment toLaw Number24 Year 2003

concerning theCons tu onal

Court

October 19,2011

October 19,2011

20 34/PUU-VIII/2010November 1, 2011

No. 88 Year2011 November

4, 2011



Health

November 1,2011

November 1,2011







MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY

OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

MAINTAINING THEINTEGRITY OF THECONSTITUTIONALCOURT




Pancasila Education




One of the characteristics of a

constitutional state is the existence

of judicial institutions which are

independent from all kinds of influence and

intervention by other branches of power,

both the legislative and executive. The

independent power of judicial institutions

is a manifestation of the principles ofpeople’s sovereignty, constitutional state, and

separation of powers.

Intervention into judicial institutions also

comes from parties other than executive and

legislative branches of power. Intervention

may come from individuals or interest groups

trying to take advantage of judicial decisions

that ignore the principle of justice.

In essence, judicial institutions are formed

with the primary mission of upholding justice.

However, it would be an indescribable irony

if justice is not served by judicial institutions

acting in the name of justice. Justice is

hijacked and taken hostage by judicial mafia

surrounding judicial institutions from eight

directions of the compass.

Such conditions have become an epidemic

adversely affecting the continuity of the life

of the state that upholds the rule of law

and justice. Judicial institutions appear as

frightening figures for justice seekers who

come from the lower and middle economic

class and on other occasions they turn into

friendly institutions when the justice seekers

are from the upper middle class. Often

times, the hope for justice is conquered by

injustice. Various facts of recurring injustice

have become part of the dark history of judicial institutions in Indonesia where law

Accountability of the Judicial Institution

Memorandum ofUnderstanding betweenthe Constitutional Court(MK) and the CorruptionEradication Commission(KPK) concerning theCommitment on theImplementation ofthe Gratuity ControlProgram.


Maintaining Judicial Independency and Accountability









enforcement officials colluded with parties

to the cases/disputing parties. As a result,

decisions were made by injuring the values

of justice.

It is undeniable that to claim for constitutional

rights will certainly require costs, for example

transportation costs to the location where

judicial institutions are located. However,

the costs would increase if the judicialinstitutions also charged case registration

fees as well as fees for obtaining copies

of decisions. In addition, hiring a lawyer

would also require extra costs. Furthermore,

the complicated bureaucracy of the judicial

institutions will create a loophole that can

be easily accessed by individuals from the

internal circle and brokers who offer services

for handling cases, up to determining the

schedule of the hearings. The amount of

money determines the speed of the processesof case registration, hearings schedule, up to

the pronunciation of decision in accordance

with the order.

The poor conditions of judicial institutions will

encourage justice seekers to take alternative

ways outside the judicial institutions, such as

through the mass media. Some of them use

electronic mail (email) and social networking

on the Internet to make themselves heard.

Such gloomy image of the judicial institutions

must be prioritized for immediate optimum

treatment. Judicial institutions must be likea tree deeply rooted into the ground, with

strong branches, slender twigs that wave leafy

foliage to provide protection for those taking

shelter under it from the heat of the sun,

and most importantly, the fruit of judicial

institutions, namely fair decisions.

Judicial institutions must have the power to

break away from anything and anyone trying

to take them hostage. Judicial institutions

are demanded to be independent and freefrom the hegemony of the executive and

legislative branches of power as well as

individuals and certain interest groups.

Supervision and Enforcement of the Code of Ethics and the Code ofConduct

Since its establishment in 2003, theConstitutional Court has confirmed its

existence as a judicial institution which is

immune from intervention of any power. The

independency of the Constitutional court

justices in hearing a case is solely subject to

the law based on the principle of substantial

justice. Autonomous and independent judicial

branch of power always maintains its existence

as the main principles a democratic state

and the rule of law state.

Independence of the Constitutional Courtin line with the formulation of Article 24

paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which

states that judicial power is the branch of

power to conduct an independent judiciary

to uphold law and justice. Strengthening the

independence of the Constitutional Court has

always been affirmed by the decisions that are

free from the executive, legislative branches of

power, and media opinion. Although the nine

Constitutional Court Justices are nominated

by three state agencies, namely the People’s




Pancasila Education




Legislative Assembly, the President, and the

Supreme Court, it does not diminish its

independence in deciding cases.

Accountability a Constitutional Court is

not to nominating institutions, but to God

Almighty and to the public, as a form of

transparency and accountability. Accountability

and transparency can be interpreted as a

form of obligation to account for the successor failure of the mission of the organization

in achieving the predetermined objectives and

targets, through the accountability media

held periodically.

In this case, constitutional court justices are

like law masters who always prioritize justice

as a principle that cannot be bargained for

or bartered with any material or power. The

attitude and behavior of justices which are

consistent in the administration of justice

would place constitutional court justices in

an admirable position (maqâman mahmûdâ)

in the eyes of justice seekers, and become

acts of worship which are approved by God

the Source of Justice.

In an effort to strengthen the independence of

constitutional court justices, the Constitutional

Court has established Constitutional Court

Regulation (PMK) Number 09/PMK/2006concerning the Enactment of the Declaration

of the Code of Ethics and Conduct of the

Constitutional Court. This PMK is intended

to uphold the integrity and personality of

constitutional court justices in a fair manner

and beyond reproach. The Code of Conduct

which is called Sapta Karsa Hutama is applied

by reference to the Bangalore Principles

of Judicial Conduct 2002, which has been

well accepted by the countries adopting the

common law and civil law legal systems.

Code of Ethics andCode of Conduct ofthe ConstitutionalCourt Justices andCode of Ethics andCode of Conduct ofthe Employees of theConstitutional Court areposted at every oor ofthe Constitutional CourtBuilding

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Lulu









The Constitutional Court has also established

the Honorary Council of Justices of the

Constitutional Court which is ad hoc in nature.

The Honorary Council of the Constitutional

Court Justice is regulated in the Constitutional

Court Regulation (PMK) Number 10/PMK/2006,

on December 1, 2006. This regulation, among

other things, improves the composition of

five members of the Honorary Council of

Justices when the threat is reaching the

dismissal sanction. In addition to the two

constitutional court justices pursuant to the

previous regulation, the composition of the

Honorary Council of Justices also includes

three members other than constitutional

court justices. All the three consist of a

senior professor in legal science, a former

supreme court justice or constitutional court

justice, as well as a former head of a high

state institution.

In addition to the code of ethics of justices,

the employees of the Constitutional Court

also have the code of ethics and conduct

of the employee in the Constitutional Court

stipulated by the Regulation of the Secretary

General of the Constitutional Court No.004/

PER/SET.MK/2007 dated August 14, 2007

on the Code of Ethics and Conduct of

the employees of the Constitutional Court

which essentially consists eight values that

must be upheld.

Both regulations have been introduced to

the justices and staff of the Constitutional

Court through various ways and means,

as presented in the Workbook of the

Constitutional Court and fixed at every

floor of the Constitutional Court building. In

addition, in various forums, the mechanism

of the code of ethics is always conveyed.

Dissemination is performed to remember the

All ranks and lesof employees of theConstitutional Court

pronounced the declarationof anti-corruption zone in the

Constitutional Court, (24/8).

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Fitri Yuliana




Pancasila Education




values in the code of ethics that must be

upheld and implemented in actions.

To improve the discipline of employees

in order to improve the culture of an

orderly, clean culture, and work culture

followed by the imposition of sanctions,

the Constitutional Court has regulated the

matter in the Regulation of the Secretary-

General of the Constitutional Court No.002/PER/SET.MK/2008. These rules specify the

working hours, enhancement of the culture

of cleanliness with obligations and restrictions

for employees, enhanced culture or cleanliness

with obligations and restrictions for employees,

and improved work culture with obligations

and restrictions for employees.

This rule is in accordance with the severity of

sanctions for violations. Sanctions are imposed

gradually, for the first offense using a verbalwarning and being recorded in Assessment

Record Book of the civil servant until the third

violation of disciplinary sanctions according to

Government Regulation No. 30 Year 1980. For

being late, not taking part in activities, going

home earlier for no more than three times in

a row and/or not entering the office without

explanation may be sanctioned according to

Government Regulation No. 30 Year 1980 and

be recorded in Assessment Record Book of

the civil servant. Meanwhile, the procedures

for the imposition of sanctions shall be in

accordance with applicable regulations.

The Constitutional Court has always

endeavored to exercise control and supervision

at home and watch each other. It takes a

powerful system and resistance to corruptive

acts as well as the importance of mutual

supervision among employees, justices and

officials, as well as all parties keeping each

other from every effort to undermine the

Constitutional Court’s dignity and honor. If

the roots of the Constitutional Court are

strong and can go deeply into the ground,

then no matter how hard the wind blows

it will not be shaken.

All that the Constitutional Court do basically

constitute a part of maintaining dignity ofthe Constitutional Court. Negative issues

that do not contain elements of truth that

have hit the Constitutional Court, if left over

time will be considered a truth, while it is

necessarily not true. To the growing rumors,

the Constitutional Court has an obligation to

clarify any issues and rumors addressed to

the Constitutional Court, especially concerning

the integrity of the institution that should

always be maintained. If any violation of

law alleged to have been committed by a justice or employees, all should be based

on strong and convincing evidence using the

applicable mechanisms. Allegations without

strong evidence are just the same as violation

of the law itself.

What the Constitutional Court does to enforce

employees’ code of ethics is the realization

of the Constitutional Court as a modern and

credible judicial institution. Great trust of the

community must be maintained while being

honest and not taking personal or group

advantage. In the event of breach of the

code of conduct, the Constitutional Court

will take firm actions and will not tolerate

any form of abuse of authority that would

undermine the institution and which would

ultimately be detrimental to the public. Public

inputs regarding the behavior of employees

are essential as inputs for the Constitutional

Court to enforce the code of ethics.









Internal Supervisory Unit

Supervision is a systematic effort to

establish standards of performance in

planning for designing information feedback

system, comparing actual performance with

predetermined standards, establishing the

existence of any deviation, and taking

corrective actions necessary to ensure that

Human Resources (HR) have been used

effectively and efficiently. Supervision is

important in running a plan. With no oversight,

it is expected that the management plan

can be met and can runs well.

Supervision is basically directed entirely to

avoid the possibility of fraud or violations

or deviations from the objectives to be

achieved. Supervision is expected to help

implement the policies defined to achieve

the planned goals effectively and efficiently.

In fact, oversight may create an activity

closely related to the determination or

evaluation of the extent of implementation of

the work already perfomed. Supervision can

also detect the extent of policy leadership

and the extent of deviations occurring in

the implementation of such work.

The results of this supervision should be

able to indicate where there is a match

or mismatch and to find the cause of

discrepancies that arise. In the context of

building public administration management

characterized by good governance, supervision

is an important aspect to keep the government

functioning as it should be. In this context,

control becomes as important as the

application of good governance itself.

Training of Trainers of theAgents of Change for theGratuity Control Program

in the cooperation betweenthe Constitutional Court and

the Corruption EradicationCommission, November 14-

18, 2011 at the PusdiklatBuilding of the Constitutional

Court, Bekasi

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/ Ilham




Pancasila Education




In relation to public accountability, oversight is

one way to build and maintain the legitimacy

from citizens to government performance

by creating an effective monitoring system,

both internal control and external control, in

addition to encouraging the social control

The existence of the Secretariat General and

the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional

Court as the implementing organization withduties and functions of public administration

and judicial administration for the nine

justices is required to apply constitutional

principles of good governance. To support

the uninterrupted implementation of internal

control functions, the Internal Audit Unit (SPI)

has been established as an element of internal

control apparatus of the government (APIP).

In accordance with Decision of the Secretary

General of the Constitutional Court No. 014.1/

KEP.MK/2011 dated January 11, 2011, theInternal Audit Unit has a fundamental duty

to supervise the implementation of the basic

tasks and functions of work units within the

Secretariat General and Registrar’s Office of

the Constitutional Court. SPI has functions,

such as internal supervision planning in the

Secretariat General and Registrar’s Office

of the Constitutional Court; to establish

procedures and guidelines on internal

control activities; to carry out inspection

and supervision in the areas of organization,

personnel, administration, finance, equipment,

secretariat, and other fields related to the

duties and functions of the Secretariat

General and the Registrar’s Office of the

Constitutional Court; to carry out review,

inspection, and supervision in accordance

with the request the Secretariat General

of the Constitutional Court; to carry out

the review of financial statements and the

Registrar’s Office-Secretariat General of the

Constitutional Court; to prepare Audit Result

Report (LHP) and the implementation of

inspection and supervision tasks in general;

and to report the performance of duties and

the principal functions of the Internal Audit

Unit regularly (monthly, quarterly, semiannually,

and annually).

Developments of SPI’s tasks during 2011

included: organizing and implementing

supervision and inspection of SPIP.

Implementation of Supervision andExamination

In line with one of the strategic objectives

of the Secretariat General and the Registrar’s

Office of the Constitutional Court of

improving transparency and accountability

of the judiciary described in 3 (three) key

performance indicators (IKU), among others,

the financial statement audit opinion, thetimeliness of financial reporting, and timely

delivery of performance reports, then the

presence of SPI becomes very strategic in

encouraging the establishment of the strategic

objectives above.

In the implementation of supervision and

inspection, SPI in fiscal year 2011 planned

to stipulate a target of the work plan, which

consists of; review, audit, evaluation, and

other oversight activities.

a. Review

For FY 2011 the plan was to conduct a

review related to the financial statements

of the Constitutional Court of the Republic

of Indonesia. Target achievements were 2

(two) reports, namely, review of financial

statements of the second half of FY 2010

and review of financial statements of the

first half of FY 2011.









Review of financial reports of the second

semester of FY 2010 was held on January

to March 2011 and review of financial

statements first half FY 2011 was held in

July to August 2011.

b. Audit

For FY 2011, the plan was to conduct

operational audits in 2 (two) units / Bureaus

in the Secretariat General and Registrar’sOffice of the Constitutional Court of the

Republic of Indonesia. However, given the

time constraints, the operational audit was

only conducted on 1 (one) unit of work,

namely the Bureau of APP.

c. Evaluation

For 2011, the plan was to evaluate

performance reports to the 2 (two) working

unit at bureau / Central level of the Puslitka

and APP units. The evaluation activities forLAKIP Puslitka were conducted in April to

May 2011, while the evaluation activities for

the Bureau of APP LAKIP evaluation were

conducted in June up to July 2011.

d. Other Supervision Activities

Other supervision activities include the study

of the review, monitoring of the completion

deadline for bills charged to the State

Revenues and Expenditures Budget of FY 2011

pursuant to Regulation of the Minister of

Finance Number 170/PMK.05/2010, and the

study of the disposition of the Secretary

General of the Constitutional Court.

For the study of the results of the FY

2011 review, SPI conducted a review of

the study of the Financial Statement of the

Constitutional Court for Semester II of FY 2010

particularly in relation to the maintenance of

equipment and machinery and buildings, as

well as a review of the work items in the

contract for maintenance of the courtroom

for FY 2011 in relation to the contract for

the management of building of Constitutional

Court carried out from March 23, 2011 to

5 April 2011.

Deepening activities for Completion deadline

for the settlement of bills charged to the

State Revenues and Expenditures Budget FY

2011 were held on September 12 up to23, 2011.

Meanwhile, the number of dispositions of

the Secretary General since January up to

November 30, 2011 was 279 pieces, with

some dispositions out of all the dispositions

with high value and high complexity and risk

being already reviewed.

Implementation of SPIP

In addition to organizing activities of

supervision and inspection, SPI has also been

carrying out activities for the implementation

of Government Internal Control System

(SPIP).

Internal control system of the government

will provide a guarantee of quality and

performance of government as a whole. To

achieve a good system of internal control

in government agencies, the Government

has issued Government Regulation (PP) No.

60 Year 2008 concerning the Government

Internal Control System (SPIP). This rule

is a guideline for government agencies to

organize the system of internal control and

for achieving good governance.

As a form of commitment to the Secretariat

General and Registrar’s Office of the

Constitutional Court in order to implement




Pancasila Education




the SPIP in the Secretariat General and

Registrar’s Office, the Constitutional Court has

conducted several activities, namely among

other things, SPIP socialization, SPIP training,

the formation of SPIP Implementation Task

Force within the purview of the Secretariat


Constitutional Court , and the implementation

of the mapping (diagnostic assessment) of

SPIP application in the Secretariat Generaland Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional

Court, preparation of action plan for the

fulfillment of the area of improvement, and

preparation of implementing regulation of

SPIP in the Constitutional Court which have

been carried out by the Task Force Team

of SPIP of the Center for the Financial and

Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) in

collaboration with SPIP Implementation Task

Force of the Constitutional Court.

Establishment of ComplaintPost Office Box and PublicInformation Center

The Constitutional Court has established a

Complaint Post Office Box for the services

of the Constitutional Court to the justice

seekers. This post office box is intended

as an input to the service of the staff of

the Constitutional Court. All inputs will be

followed up according to work units related

the applicable mechanisms to uphold the

presumption of innocence.

To ensure the fulfillment of the rights of

citizens to obtain information, to encourage

and to promote the participation of the

community as well as to achieve a good

state administration, the Constitutional Court

has established a Public Information Service

within the purview of the Constitutional Court.

This service is provided for in Regulation of

the Secretary General of the Constitutional

Court No. 006/PER/SET.MK/2011 as mandated

by Law no. 14 Year 2008 regarding Public

Disclosure.

Various information can be obtained, for

example information which must be announced

immediately, and at any time. Some

information is exempt except by the permission

of the Chief Justice of the ConstitutionalCourt. This information is given with a

particular procedure. All information provided

is an essential part of the transparency of

judicial institutions.

Reporting of the Wealth ofState Administrators

In order to implement Presidential Instruction

No.5 of 2004 on the Acceleration of

Corruption Eradication, the Constitutional

Court has stipulated it in the form of

Decision of the Secretary General of the

Constitutional Court No.016/KEP/SET.MK/2011

concerning the Stipulation of Obligation to

Report the Wealth of Officers who have

Strategic Positions and Potential/prone to

Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism in the


The dictum of this decision stipulates the

aforementioned 18 officials and LHKPN shall

made and submitted to the Corruption

Eradication Commission no later than 60

(sixty) days after the official holds office or

resigns from the position. In addition, the

next dictum states that in every two years

LHKPN must be updated and the subsequent

dictum imposes sanctions for violations of

this decision. LHKPN has also been reported

to the Corruption Eradication Commission as

an effort to prevent corruption.









Granting of the HighestStandards AchievementAwards in Government

Financial Accounting andReporting 2011 by the

Ministry of Finance


Gratuity Control

Act of receiving gratuities by state

administrators or the civil servants is

considered a bribe if it is related to his/

her position and if it is contrary to his/her

obligations and duties. The gratuity regulation

as the gratuity awareness may have a bad

impact and may be abused. Appropriate

measures need to be conducted in relation

to gratuity by declining or immediately

reporting any gratuity received.

In order to support efforts to eradicate

corruption in the Constitutional Court, the

Constitutional Court and the Corruption

Eradication Commission was committed For the

purpose of implementing the Gratuity Control

Program, the Memorandum of Understanding

(MoU) was signed on August 24, 2011.

As the implementation of cooperation, the

Constitutional Court has carried out severalactivities in the implementation of the

gratuity control system of the Constitutional

Court, which includes among other things,

workshops, interviews (assessment), Training

of Trainers (ToT). The Constitutional Court

has also established the executive board for

gratuity control functions in the Constitutional

Court.

In relation to the gratuity control, and inrelation to Holidays in 2011, the Secretariat


Constitutional Court issued a Circular Letter

of the Secretary General of the Constitutional

Court No.2368.3/KP.05.05/09/2011 containing

the appeal for each work unit to monitor,

collect data and coordinate the reporting

of gratuities of the officers and staff of

the Constitutional Court. In addition, the

Constitutional Court has applied Implementation

measures to collect data of the gratuityacceptance in the Constitutional Court.




Pancasila Education




Anti-Corruption Zone

Efforts to prevent corruption in judicial

institutions cannot be made by the judicial

institutions themselves, but must be supported

by the entire community, especially the parties

related to the judicial institutions. Speed,

accuracy, and transparency may automatically

minimize corruption.

The Constitutional Court achieved the

unqualified opinion (WTP) predicate upon the

Financial Statements of the Constitutional

Court 2010 of the Audit Board (BPK). Based

on the letter of the Audit Board No.93A/HP/

XVI/05/2011 dated May 20, 2011, concerning

Audit Results Report of the Audit Board upon

the Financial Statements of the Constitutional

Court 2010, the Audit Board gave an

unqualified opinion (WTP). Upon the Financial

Statements of the Constitutional Court 2010,

the Audit Board stated that there was no

significant weakness in the Internal Control

System of the Constitutional Court.

For the Constitutional Court, the achievement

of Unqualified Opinion was for the fifth

time. Previously, the Constitutional Court

achieved Unqualified Opinions in 2006,

2007, 2008, and 2009 for financial reportsand management which were transparent,

accountable, through the assessment by

professionals and independent auditors’ team

of the Audit Board. This opinion was obtained

for the role of all ranks and files of the

Secretariat General and the Registrar’s Office

of the Constitutional Court as well as all

employees of the Constitutional Court.

After giving of the unqualified opinion predicate

the all employees in the Constitutional Court

a declaration of the commitment of anti-

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court,Moh. Mahfud MD, ViceChief Justice of theConstitutional CourtAhmad Sodiki, Chairmanof the CorruptionEradication Commission

M. Busyro Muqoddas,Chairman of the AuditBoard Hadi Poernomo,during the signingof the Memorandumof Understanding(MoU) between theConstitutional Courtand the CorruptionEradication Commission,and the MoU betweenthe Constitutional Courtand the Audit Board.Wednesday (24/8)










corruption zone and commitment to maintain

unqualified predicate was guided by the

Secretary General of the Constitutional Court.

The Anti-Corruption Commitment was also the

commitment of the Constitutional Court in

2011, as had been performed in previous

years. It was aimed at strengthening the

integrity of the institution of the Constitutional

Court as a state institutions serving as the

guardian of the constitution which is modernand reliable up to the date.

All awards given to the Constitutional Court

are not the goals but the efforts of full

professionalism, discipline and honesty to

realize the Constitutional Court as a judicial

institution which is trusted and which has

integrity. The commitment of anti-corruption

zone was expected to always be applied in

real actions in the Constitutional Court.

In addition to the unqualified opinion award,

the Constitutional Court also received Highest

Standards Achievement Awards in Government

Accounting and Financial Reporting Year

2011 from the Ministry of Finance. Symbolic

handover was performed by Vice President

Budiono during the opening of the National

Working Meeting of the Government Accounting

and Financial Reporting Year 2011, (19/9)

at Dhanapala Building, Jakarta.

In addition to the Constitutional Court, awards

were also granted to 53 ministries and

institutions as well as 32 local governments

that had implemented the best financial

reports in 2010 by obtaining unqualified

opinions. The financial statements became

the parameter for assessing the performance

of the government.




Pancasila Education




Transparency of the Judicial Institution

The fenceless buildingof the ConstitutionalCourt Buildingsymbolizes transparency

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/Ray Bachtiar

Judicial institutions must prepare themselves

amidst the increasingly growing knowledge

of the community along with the rapid

technological advancements which have

provided the community with easy access

to information in a real time manner,

anytime and anywhere. The willingness to

be transparent can be defined as the

preparedness to accept inputs and criticisms

for improvement. Transparency of information

through various channels, both conventionally

(offline) and electronically (online), constitutes

an avoidable demand of the era.

Modern management of judicial institutions

constitutes a form of transparency which

has become the need for facilitating the

community’s access to justice. A Judicial

institution must be able to implement the

principles of good governance, namely:

transparency, fairness, impartiality, independency

and accountability. In order to be able to

perform duties based on the principles of

fairness and impartiality, a judicial institution

must assert its position as a free institution

or the independency in performing judicial

functions without eliminating the required

accountability of a judicial institution according

to the principle of accountability.

Fairness is implemented by treating every

person equally before the law in terms of

provision of information, response, time as

well as cost in every process which must

be followed. Impartiality is related to the

hearing process as well as case service

not being based on close relations, power,

wealth or majority-minority considerations,

but rather it must be equal in accordance

with the laws and regulations. Meanwhile,

transparency is intended for the community

to properly know how the judicial process









should be conducted, the progress of cases

being heard, the hearing process and the

court’s decisions.

The organization of a judicial institution

is required to be transparent in providing

services, particularly for the justice-seeking

community, since the initial objective (khittah)

of the establishment of a judicial institution is

to guard the enforcement of law and justice.Transparent management of an organization

would automatically eliminate the public’s

suspicion of vile and dirty practices bathed

in ruthlessness. Transparency of judicial

institution will not materialize without the

support of facilities and infrastructure relevant

to the needs.

From the beginning of its establishment, the

Constitutional Court has consolidated its

existence as a transparent judicial institution.This is reflected, among other things, on

the construction of the Constitutional Court

Building designed in such a way that it

represents the authority, functions, as well

as the vision and mission inherent in the

Constitutional Court and the goal of becoming

the “House of the Constitution”. In addition to

the aesthetic flavor, the selected architecture

also reflects symbols philosophically rich

with meaning.

The green yard in front of the Constitutional

Court Building is not fenced. This symbolizes

the openness of the Constitutional Court to

the general public, including for conveying

their aspirations. By leaving the yard open,

the community will get the impression that

the Constitutional Court Building is not

arrogant, but rather it is an open and

kind building.

Development of ICT-BasedJudicature

Rapid development in information and

communication technologies (ICT) is a blessing

on its own if they can be utilized for the

benefit of human life. The utilization of ICT

in judicial institutions must be understood

as an initiative to provide excellent services

to the justice-seeking community.

The utilization of the most recent ICT, both

internally and externally, becomes the option

of the Constitutional Court for materializing

transparency in the judicial institution. Even ICT

utilization has proven to give great support

for the judicial administration process in a

cost-effective, quick, accurate and transparent

manner. In addition, this can prevent any

direct individual interaction between external

parties and the employees of the judicial

institution which often becomes the beginning

of corruption practices.

It is undeniable that modernization marked

by the rapid development of ICT plays a

great role in influencing the changes in the

interaction patterns. The ICT system has

been created for the purpose of providing

facilities in various fields of life.

Traditions with positive values in the judicial

institution must always be firmly upheld.

On the other hand, the emergence of the

aforementioned new phenomenon in the arena

of life should obtain proper appreciation. If

the new phenomenon has a positive meaning

brings a blessing for the benefit of the

justice-seeking community, then the benefits

should be enjoyed because a tradition,

either old or new, is considered to have a

positive value if it contains certainty, justice

and benefit.




Pancasila Education




In applying transparency and accountability,

the Constitutional Court has, since its

establishment, utilized the ICT system. The

performance of duties and authority by using

ICT has become a part of the bureaucratic

reform within the purview of the Secretariat


Constitutional Court. The use of ICT can

reduce interactions ultimately leading to

the rigging of cases or decisions to amaximum. In addition, the utilization of ICT

is the materialization of transparency and

accountability of the Constitutional Court as

a judicial institution which always endeavors

to open the access to justice to a maximum

extent.


have been continuously applying and

developing the Case Management System

(Sistem Manajemen Perkara or Simpel). Thissystem is intended to facilitate justice seekers

to obtain access to justice. This online

petition application launched on August 11,

2006 has made it easier for the petitioners

to file a case. The Constitutional Court also

serves legal consultation online.

Easy access to justice is also applied by the

Constitutional Court in every hearing. Every

decision pronounced can be immediately

read by the parties and all people presentin the hearing as it is displayed in the

screen. Furthermore, within 15 minutes upon

the pronouncement of the decision, the

Constitutional Court uploads the decision in

the website of the Constitutional Court so

that the general public can directly know

and download it.

Considering the relatively great potential

efficiency and effectiveness of the ICT

utilization, the Constitutional Court, in 2011,had been continuously improving the display

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Courtsymbolically launchedthe e-Procurement ande-Perisalah, January 13,2011.]










of the Constitutional Court at the address

www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id to provide easy

access for the community. In the website

address, the community can obtain relatively

sufficient knowledge regarding the existence of

the Constitutional Court. Various information

regarding the hearing as well as non-hearing

information is presented in the website.

The main mission of ICT utilization is to

provide excellent services to parties in acase. The parties to a case, i.e. petitioner,

respondent, the government, the People’s

Legislative Assembly, and other related parties,

can access the case summary, synopsis,

hearing minutes, hearing video streaming

and results of decision. Information on

hearing schedule is also presented in the

website of the Constitutional Court so that

public may know the hearing process in the


In addition, the website of the Constitutional

Court is also enriched with a library of

electronic books (e-books) such as Regulations

of the Constitutional Court, Konstitusi

Magazine, papers, Konstitusi Journal, research

results, symposium proceeding. Such e-books

can still be downloaded at any time, of

course with the required connection to the

internet.

The utilization of ICT in the Constitutional

Court also supports the concept of paperless

office, since the use of paper-based materials

is symmetrically comparable to the cutting

down of trees in the forest. The use of

more paper will lead to a greater potential

of land clearance or deforestation. Meanwhile,

forests serve as the lungs of the Earth,

provider of the main source of life, namely

oxygen. Therefore, changing everything related

to paper into digital formats is an option

which is extremely beneficial, effective and

efficient. Published books, magazines and

other print media can be converted into a

digital format. Correspondence can use email

formats in a virtual office.

This ICT-based administration program is

implemented on a continuous basis as part

of the implementation of integrated judicial

system in the Constitutional Court which is

transparent and accountable. Technology-based implementation of duties is also

considered as part of the bureaucratic reform

within the purview of the General Secretariat

and the Registrar’s Office. In addition, it can

minimize the existence of judicial mafia in

the Constitutional Court to a zero limit.

The Development of e-CourtFacilitates Access to Justice.

The community’s access to information

contained in the website of the Constitutional

Court constitutes a form of the principles

of transparency and accountability. All the

features, applications available in the website

of the Constitutional Court offer easy options

for the parties in a case domiciled throughout

the motherland. The Constitutional Court

continuously expands the reach to make itself

closer to the justice-seeking community.

The Constitutional Court has changed the

image of judicial institution which has been

so far considered scary in the eyes of

the community. Various optional efforts to

facilitate access to justice continue to be

made by, among other things, developing

e-court. The Constitutional Court continues to

make initiatives of developing e-court along

with the development of information and

communication technology for the purpose

of realizing the Constitutional Court as a

modern and credible judicial institution.




Pancasila Education




Indeed, the development of e-court needs

to involve all parties, meaning that the

parties need to understand the procedures

for submitting petitions and the law. Since

August 11, 2006, the Constitutional Court

has broken down conservatism of the hearing

procedural law in Indonesia by launching

the case management system (Simpel), by

giving the opportunity for registration of

petitions online. With this system, all thepeople, anywhere and at anytime can file

petitions to the Constitutional Court. The

application of electronic case management

information system (Simpel) developed by the

Constitutional Court is based on the work

flow using internet technology.

The current case management system has

been increasingly leading to e-court, which

allows all segments of society to use

their legal rights to have a case heard inthe Constitutional Court. In addition, the

community can know the development of

their case easily. The use of information

and communication technology provides the

community with wide access to court and

justice. The aforementioned programs are,

among other things:

(i) I n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m o f w w w.

mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id

Basically, the website of the Constitutional

Court is a general website of the Constitutional

Court of the Republic of Indonesia containing

news regarding the Constitutional Court,

hearing schedule, decisions, hearing minutes,

case summaries, summary of decisions,

Regulations of the Constitutional Court, news

of the Constitutional Court in the form of

magazines, video streaming of hearings,

online petition, online consultation as well

as MKTV.

(ii) Archival Information System

The information system which stores

information files in a database. Stored files

can be easily retrieved at any time when

required.

(iii) e-Law Information System

The application system contains information

presenting legal products, such as the 1945Constitution, laws, Stipulations of the People’s

Consultative Assembly, Presidential Stipulations,

Regional Government’s Policies, and Central

Government’s Policies.

(iv) Information System of the Constitutional

Court of the Republic of Indonesia

This is the electronic case information system

which can be referred to as SIMPEL utilized

by petitioners to file cases online. Online

submission of a case is provided by MK asone of the efforts of facilitating access for

the general public. Thus, if the Petitioners

are domiciled far from the location of the

Constitutional Court which is in the Capital

City of Jakarta only, they can perform online

registration without personally coming there

considering the urgency of distance and time

to register a case. This is of course related to

the Constitutional Court as a modern judicial

institution wishing for the implementation of

the principle of timeliness.

To make it easier for the community

to access the ICT-based administration

service, the Constitutional Court disseminates

information to the general public by, among

other things: (i) Disseminating information on

the procedures for Proceedings in the court;

(ii) Providing easier access to information

regarding the progress of the case: (iii)

Making the procedures for attending the

hearing process easier; (iv) Accelerating and









simplifying the case proceeding process; and

(v) Eliminating or at least pressing the cost

of proceedings which must be borne by the

community. So far, the Constitutional Court

has not imposed and case fees from any

other party, so that all segments of society

whose constitutional rights are impaired may

filing a petition.

(v) simpp Information System

The information system of simpp functions as

the case data bank of the Constitutional Court.

This system is equipped with multilayered

filtering of case data search system for more

accurate search. In addition, this system is

also beneficial for preparing reports of cases

of the Constitutional Court.

(vi) simpus Information System

Simpus is an information system presenting

a list of various books available in the

Library of the Constitutional Court of the

Republic of Indonesia.

(vii) simtor Information System

Simtor constitutes an information system

providing Turn of Reference used for recording

data of goods in procurement of goods.

(viii) sisca Information System

Sisca constitutes an information systemproviding a database of financial information

systems (siska).

(ix) e-procurement Information System

E-procurement constitutes an information

system developed for the management of

goods procurement at the Constitutional

Court. This information system was launched

in early 2011, on January 13, 2011.

Court Recording System

The whole hearing process in the Constitutional

Court is documented using the court recording

system. The system currently developed

by the Constitutional Court is capable of

recording the whole hearing process, storing

data in audio and video formats, as well as

transferring and storing such data in a digital

form and printable transcript. The recordingis run digitally, to be subsequently distributed

to the transcriber to be transcribed

The utilization of ICT in the court recording

system is important for documentation of the

hearing and the making of hearing transcripts.

On the one hand, good documentation will

be useful for justices in decision-making

because the whole hearing is recorded

properly. On the other hand, this will be

of great help to people who want to know

the whole hearing process.

This system also gives an idea of how the

hearing is managed. Another system developed

for the purpose of data accuracy is the

case minute management system, namely,

the use of ICT to correct the hearing

minutes and decision. This ICT is beneficial

to ensure that a legal document has been

correctly written, does not lead to multiple

interpretations and can be understood easily.

Case files, minutes and decisions of the

Constitutional can be easily retrieved using

the online information retrieval.

At the beginning of 2011 (January 13,

2011) the Constitutional Court launched its

e-Perisalah as the result of cooperation

between the Constitutional Court and PT. INTI

(Industri Telekomunikasi Indonesia). Previously,




Pancasila Education




since September 2, 2010 the Constitutional

Court had entered into cooperation with

the Agency for Assessment and Application

of Technology of Badan Pengkajian dan

Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT) to implement

the latest minutes-making system called

e-Perisalah.

The e-Perisalah system is a minutes-making

solution system using speech recognition

technology that automatically transcribes all

speeches both in hearings and in meetings.

The e-Perisalah has a feature showing the

speaker’s speech, so that it is easy to identify

when the speech starts, who is speaking,

and what is being talked about. The reason

for BBPT to choose the Constitutional Court

as the first place for the application of

e-Perisalah was that BPPT considered the

Constitutional Court to be the state institution

making the best transcript Indonesia at the

moment.

By using the e-Perisalah System, the

preparation of the minutes of hearings,meetings and discussions becomes more

efficient in terms of time and human

resources. In addition, it facilitates the

storage of archives in the form of digital

sound recording and electronic text in

the database. This minutes-making system

possessed by BPPT has been used in the

hearings of the Constitutional Court since

August 2, 2010 last year.

Hearing on the disputeover the results of theElection of RegionalHead of MajeneRegency through videoconference.

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/PranaPatrayoga









Video Conference

Since the beginning of its establishment,

the Constitutional Court has endeavored

to apply the principles of transparency

and accommodate all interests, while

simultaneously addressing the problem of

accessibility of the parties concerned. The

existence of the Constitutional Court with its

office and hearings in Jakarta only was very

likely to create specific obstacles for the

parties concerned to come personally. For

example, the petitioners’ witnesses may be

domiciled in the remote territory of one of

the most distant province from Jakarta, or

experts domiciled abroad. The Constitutional

Court has strived to a maximum extent

to trim the barrier lines by providing the

supporting means or facilities so that the

barriers of travel distance time and cost

no longer become the barriers for the

community to follow the hearings in the

Constitutional Court

The need for speedy trial process increased

when the Constitutional Court heard cases of

disputes over election results. To meet that

need, the Constitutional Court introduced the

use of video conference. Video conference has

been extremely useful for opening accessibility

of the hearings of the Constitutional Court

to the community without being physically

present in the building of the Constitutional

Court.

Along with subsequent developments, utilization

of the video conference technology became

increasingly widespread. Coordination meetings

of the Constitutional Court with the Faculties

of Law and the Centers for Constitutional

Studies throughout Indonesia on June 20-

22, 2008 produced the Memorandum of

Understanding regarding the use of video

conference. Through an agreement with

39 faculties of law, the video conference

technology network was expanded to 39

universities to facilitate the implementation of

the hearings of the Constitutional Court.

The need for the utilization of video

conference has increased along with the

delegation of authority to handle cases of

general elections and the election of regionalheads (Pemilukada) into the hands of the

Constitutional Court. Video conference is

beneficial not only to the disputing parties,

but also to the public.

To further regulate the procedural law

necessary for uninterrupted implementation of

its duties and authority, the Constitutional

Court issued Regulations of the Constitutional

Court (PMK) Number 18 Year 2009 regarding

the Procedures Electronic Petition SubmissionGuidelines (Electronic Filing) and Long-Distance

Examination Hearing (video conference). Article

16 the PMK states, among other things, that

long distance examination hearing (video

conference) shall be conducted on the basis

of the petition of the petitioner and/or the

respondent or its attorney. Long distance

examination hearing conducted by panel of

justices against the petitioner and/or the

respondent or its attorney authority, witnesses

and/or experts shall be conducted online

and in a real time (instant) manner from a

long distance through the video conferencing

technology using telephone and network

connections, so as to allow the parties to

see and talk to each other as it would be

in a hearing held offline.

The aforementioned article also explains the

procedures for long-distance hearing. The

application for a long-distance hearing shall

be submitted no later than 5 (five) business




Pancasila Education




days prior to the planned implementation of

the long-distance hearing, either directly or via

facsimile, e-mail, express mail, or any other

media available. Subsequently, the Registrar’s

Office of the Court will notify the Petitioner

and/or the Respondent or its attorney of the

implementation of the long-distance hearing

no later than 2 (two) business days prior

to the implementation of the long-distancehearing and that such notification shall also

serve as hearing summons.

Throughout the year 2011, the Constitutional

Court has heard Pemilukada cases via

video conference for 14 times namely at

the University of Sam Ratulangi, Manado in

North Sulawesi (1 time), University of North

Sumatera (1 time), Diponegoro University,

Semarang (2 times), Haluoleo University,

Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi (1 time), StateUniversity of Riau (1 time), Nusa Cendana

University, Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara (1

time), Hasanuddin University, Makassar, South

Sulawesi (1 time), Cendrawasih University,

Jayapura, East Papua (4 times) and Gajah

Mada University, Yogyakarta (2 times). The

example was the dispute of Pemilukada

of Sarmi Regency, Papua on October 24,

2011 with an agenda of examination of

25 witnesses presented by the Petitionerin Case Number 106/PHPU.D-IX/2011. The

witnesses’ statements were directly heard

through video conference from Cenderawasih

University, East Papua.

In 2011, video conference has continued

to be developed not only to facilitate the

judicial process of the Constitutional Court,

but has also been used for educational

activities such as higher education of law

and public lectures by constitutional court justices, professors and experts in the field

The CentralInformationCommission (KIP)held a hearing at theConstitutional Courtby utilizing the videoconference facility.

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court//Andhini SF









of law and constitution, both from within and

outside the country, carried out interactively

with 39 Faculties of Law in cooperation

with the Constitutional Court. The purpose

and background of the holding of a public

Lectures in 2011 were to increase the

insight of students and other participants

primarily on materials about Pancasila, the

Constitution, and Procedural Law of the

Constitutional Court. Throughout 2011, publiclectures via video conference were carried

out for 64 times.

The video conference facility owned by the

Constitutional Court has also been utilized

by agencies for the purposes of the hearings

and discussion. Among other things, the video

conference facility was utilized by the Central

Information Commission (KIP). On January

18, 2011, KIP held a follow-up hearing for

adjudicating the information dispute betweenthe community and public legal entity in a

case of ‘fat account’ of an officer of the

Police of the Republic of Indonesia. The

hearing held in the Courtroom for Plenary

Session of the Constitutional Court on the

4th floor was broadcast live to 12 universities

through the video conference facility owned

by the Constitutional Court. The twelve

campuses were University of North Sumatra in

Medan, University of Sriwijaya in Palembang,

Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University of Banten,

Diponegoro University in Semarang, Gadjah

Mada University in Yogyakarta, Padjadjaran

University in Bandung, Airlangga University in

Surabaya, Palangkaraya University, Hasanuddin

University in Makassar, Gorontalo University,

Mataram University, and Nusa Cendana

University in Kupang.

The National Commission for Women (Komnas

Perempuan) was also recorded to have held

a discussion utilizing the video conference

facility owned by the Constitutional Court

on April 25, 2011. At the Press Conference

Room on 4th floor of the Constitutional

Court Building, a discussion on the role

of women in the movement of diversity

of Indonesia was interactively connected

via video conference with four universities,

namely Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta,

North Sumatra University in Medan, Mataram

University in West Nusa Tenggara, andPattimura University in Ambon. At the end of

the event, Constitutional Court Justice Maria

Farida Indarti who acted as the discussion

resource person, together with participants who

were present at the Constitutional Court as

well as in the aforementioned four universities

once again sang the Sabang sampai Marauke

to bring the spirit of diversity.

Digital Signage

In its development, the Constitutional Court

has also possessed a Digital Signage program

which constitutes a form of facility for

providing a forum for the community of

visitors to access various features of the

Constitutional Court’s services for 24 hours.

The user-interface form of the Digital Signage

is in the form of a 32 inch touch screen

equipped with various menu items which

can be freely accessed by the community

or visitors.

Basically, the Digital Signage is the

development of the e-Kiosk Facility which

the Constitutional Court has possessed since

2009. The e-Kiosk Program supported by a

multimedia computer in the box room under

this touch screen contains the features of the

website of the Constitutional Court including

website links or applications such s the

PIH (Legal Information Center) and Simpel,

access to website links, live broadcast of




Pancasila Education




the ongoing hearing, access to multimedia

files in the form of photos and videos of

hearings which have taken place in the


Meanwhile, the contents in the Digital

Signage are the results of synchronization

of information from video conference, input

user, website of the Constitutional Court and

simpus. The advantages of the Digital Signage

are mainly the multimedia display which is

dynamic and richer with features such as

the profile of the library of the Constitutional

Court of the Republic of Indonesia, hearings,

MKTV, and digital announcement board.

Currently, the Constitutional Court has had 7

units of Digital Signage which are installed

at strategic locations, namely at the front

lobby and the rear lobby, the plenary session

room lobby on 2nd floor, the Government’s

waiting room on 4th floor, library room

on 5th floor, library room on 6th floor,

and the room for Consultative Meetings of

Justices (RPH).

The Constitutional Court has also developed

the Financial Information System (Siska) as

the development of the previously existing

system. The development of the general

administration system is basically aimed at

increasing effectiveness, efficiency, productivity

and accountability. Through the utilization of

technology, the general administration can

be arranged properly and in a well-directed

manner. If all the applications of this system

work, the organizational structuring of the

Constitutional Court will be easier to be

conducted in the future, so that the Court

can perform as an increasingly modern and

credible court.

A visitor was lookingat the ConstitutionalCourt’s hearingschedule on theDigital Signagefacility on theground oor of theConstitutional Courtbuilding.










Website of the ConstitutionalCourt

Dissemination of information through the

internet media has currently become an

important need in line with the development

of the increasingly modern information

technology. In response to this demand, the

Constitutional Court has made an official

website of the Constitutional Court containing

information regarding the Constitutional Courtand the hearings which can be accessed

through the internet.

To facilitate and fulfill the need for accessing

information regarding the Constitutional

Court through the virtual world, the website

of the Constitutional Court is continuously

improved. The newest display of the website

of the Constitutional Court provides more

menu items accessible through the internet,

namely, among other things, video streamingand video minutes.

The community’s access is widely opened,

including to consultation on constitutional

issues online. Similarly, registration of cases

can be performed online, with access and

downloads as well as live streaming. The

number of visitors up to the end of December

2011 has been 7,721,120 visitors.

In addition to reading hearing news, non-

hearing news and menu display provided

in the website of the Constitutional Court,

the visitors of can also download uploaded

files, such as the files of hearing minutes,

decisions and Konstitusi Magazine. Up to

December 30, 2011, 119,850 visitors to the

website of the Constitutional Court have

downloaded Konstitusi Magazine. As many

as 51,344 visitors have downloaded e-journal,

39,985 visitors have downloaded annual

reports, and 79,977 visitors have downloaded

papers. Subsequently, 63,874 visitors have

downloaded the Comprehensive Script of theAmendment to the 1945 Constitution, 46,804

Legal Information Center





Pancasila Education




visitors have downloaded the results of

research and studies, 144 have downloaded

Regulations of the Constitutional Court,

832,789 have downloaded Decisions of the

Constitutional Court, 382,812 have downloaded

case summaries, 787,903 have downloaded

hearing minutes, and lastly, 192,414 visitors

have downloaded decision summaries.

Subsequently, to enrich the treasury ofknowledge in the field of law, the website

of the Constitutional Court displays the

menu of Legal Information Center (PIH). This

menu constitutes a form of service for the

community to obtain information regarding

law in its various forms.

The community can access legal documents

in the form of the 1945 Constitution, laws

and regulations, Government Regulations in

Lieu of Law, Presidential Regulations, Ministerial

Regulations, Decisions of the Constitutional

Court, decisions of the Supreme Court,

et cetera. Throughout 2011, the files andattachments uploaded in PIH are: Laws

(13 files, Government Regulations (43 files),

Presidential Regulations (72 files), Ministerial

Regulations (84 files) and Regional Regulations

(6,308 files).

Pro le of the websiteof the ConstitutionalCourt at www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id










BUREAUCRATIC REFORM IN THECONSTITUTIONAL COURT

In many countries, bureaucracy developing in

the national life constitutes the main forum

for state administration in various fields of

national life and in international relations. In

addition to serving the function of service

management, bureaucracy also has the duty

of translating various political decisions into

various public policies and develops in serves

the function of managing the operational

implementation of such various policies.Meanwhile, Bureaucratic Reform constitutes

significant changes in the elements of

bureaucracy, namely among other things, the

institution, human resources of apparatuses,

supervision and public service. However, it

is necessary to realize that bureaucratic

reform is a decisive factor in the success

of all governmental agendas, including for

materializing a clean and KKN (Corruption,

Collusion and Nepotism)-free government in

the entire scenario for materializing goodgovernance. However the experiences of

our nation and other nations indicate that

bureaucracy is not always able to perform

its duties and functions automatically and

independently and to produce significant

performance.

Various problems/barriers causing the

government administration system to

dysfunction or to function improperly so

that it must be rearranged or renewed.Bureaucratic reform is implemented for the

purpose of materializing good governance.

In other words, bureaucratic reform is a

strategic step to build the state apparatus

to be more efficient and effective in carrying

out general duties of the government and

national development. In addition to extremely

rapid advancements in science, information

and communication technology as well as

changes in the strategic environment demand

the government bureaucracy to be reformedand adapted to the dynamic demands of




Pancasila Education




society. Therefore, fundamental, comprehensive,

and systematic steps should be immediately

taken so that the objectives and targets can

be achieved effectively and efficiently. Reform

here is a renewal process performed in a

gradual and sustainable manner, so that it

does not include radical and revolutionary

efforts and/or actions.

Most efforts which have been made by theSecretariat General and the Registrar’s Office

of the Constitutional Court related to providing

services to people seeking justice have

been implemented in a transparent, accurate

manner and with high validity. Technological

facilities that have been possessed by the


to provide support to the Constitutional Court

in carrying out its authority in a transparent

manner have proven to provide a sense of

satisfaction. The indicator is the certaintyof an extremely transparent decision issued

without interference and pressure from any

party. These conditions have, in principle,

been implemented since the establishment of

the Constitutional Court on August 13, 2003,

which bears great responsibility in guarding

the constitution and the creation of the

checks and balances system with respect

to the power of high state institutions. The

Constitutional Court has decided several cases

which result in changes to the atmosphere

of the state administration system of the

Republic of Indonesia, and will gradually lead

to the law being the commander in the life

of the state. It is realized that the role is

not easy to maintain. Therefore, to provide

complete certainty for efforts to increase

the role, the development and improvement

of management systems, institution and

human resources are continuously made. The

government and its existing apparatuses have

determined that for the government to be

clean, effective and efficient, rearrangement

is necessary the bureaucratic reform program

as set forth in the Regulation of Minister

of Administrative Reform Number PER/15/M.

PAN/7/2008 regarding the Implementing

Guidelines on Bureaucratic Reform.

From the aspect of service to the justice-

seeking community, the Court has managedto provide quick, accurate, transparent,

accountable and very satisfactory services,

which can be measured by the accuracy of

the Court’s decisions and the delivery of

decision files to the disputing parties on the

day on which the decision is pronounced.

In such conditions, the creation of good

governance within the judiciary such as the

Constitutional Court can be continued with

emphasis on the arrangement that has not

implemented according to the stages thathave been specified in the bureaucratic reform

guidelines. Rearrangement of the stages of

bureaucratic reform within the Secretariat

General and Registrar’s of the Constitutional

Court includes the phasing area, including

strategic direction, change management,

structuring of the institutional system of the


of the Constitutional Court, organizational

structuring of the General Secretariat and the

Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court,

the management of the Secretariat General

and the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional

Court, the arrangement of the HR management

system of the Secretariat General and the

Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court

of the Republic of Indonesia, the strengthening

of organizational units, legislation drafting,

internal controls, performance accountability

strengthening, improvement of the quality of

public services, and monitoring, evaluation

and reporting.









Meanwhile, the essence of bureaucratic

reform related to the service to justice-

seeking community has been implemented

by the Constitutional Court. Some essential

aspects of bureaucratic reform which have

been implemented are, among other things:

formulation and enforcement of the Code of

Conduct of Employees of the Constitutional

Court; online case management system;

e-archive system; delivery of decisionimmediately after the plenary session for

decision pronouncement; display of decision

on the screen during the plenary session

for decision pronouncement; publication of

decision in the website of the Constitutional

Court 15 minutes after the decision

is pronounced; publication of decision

in the print media one day after the

plenary session for decision pronouncement;

preparation of hearing minutes; publication

of the hearing minutes in the website ofthe Constitutional Court 24 hours after the

hearing; preparation and implementation of

the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP); as

well as procurement of goods and services

electronically (e-procurement).

Furthermore, to stabilize the essence of

bureaucratic reform as referred to above, the


of the Constitutional Court will implement

the seven packages of bureaucratic reformactivities, namely: Strategic Clarification and

Accountability Mapping; Job Analysis and Key

Performance Indicator; Job Evaluation and

Job Grading; Remuneration Management;

Competency Model; Career Management;

as well as Manning (Workload) Analysis.

The scope of preparation of bureaucratic

reform documents within the purview of

the Secretariat General and the Registrar’s

Office of the Constitutional Court covers

the followings.

Analysis of Posi on & Key Performance Indicators (1)

Inventory of o cedata

• Delivering ques onnaires toposi on holders

• Providing guidelines oncomple ng ques onnaires

• C onduct ing analy sis ofques onnaires obtained fromposi on holders.

• Valida ng ques onnaires toposi on holders by extrac nginformation to positionholders/personnel

1. Recapitulation of structuralpositions and non-structuralposi ons

2. Descr ip t ion of pos i t ioncontaining the followinginforma on:a. Posi on Iden ty;b. Posi on Status;c. Main Du es and Func ons

of the Posi on;d. Details of du ese. Work Rela onshipf. Posi on Responsibili es;g. Work Environment;h. Posi on and Competence

Requirements

Table 12

Scope of Preparation of Bureaucratic Reform Documents Within the Purview of theSecretariat General and the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional

No ItemReference/Descrip on of

Ac vityFrequency




Pancasila Education




Evalua on of Posi ons and Classes of Posi ons (2)

Preparing Evalua onof Posi on

Evaluating the description ofposition using the factors/v a r i a b l e s o f a u t h o r i t y ,responsibility, scope of duty, jobrisk and job characteris cs

Documents of evaluation ofmanagerial and non-managerial

j obs (S t ruc tu ra l a nd Non-Structural)

Preparing the Rankand Weight/score ofposi on

Preparing (quantitative) valueof each posi on based on eachfactor, so that each posi on hasa di erent weight varia on.

Documents of ranks of posi onweight/score in managerial andnon-managerial jobs (Structuraland Non-Structural)

Competence Model (3)

P r e p a r i n g t h ecompetence modelf o r p o s i t i o n s /personnel

P r e p a r i n g t h e p r o f i l e /requirements for each posi onfrom all aspects and positioncharacteris cs.

1. D o c u m e n t o f p o s i t i o nrequirement mapping

2. Document of personnelcompetence mapping

Workload Analysis (4)

P r e p a r i n g t h eworkload analysis

• Conducting measurementof workload based on theresults of posi on analysis

• Collec ng data/documents ofwork performance

• Conducti ng interviews ofposi on holders/personnel inrela on to work performancea n d v o l u m e t h e y a r eresponsible for

• Validating the results ofin terviews in order todetermine the needs ofpersonnel in each posi onand standardiza on of workfor positions and workingunits

1. Document of the Needs of eachposi on and working unit.

2. Document of Standardiza onof the works of Posi ons andworking unit

Management of Performance Assessment System and Remunera on Management (5)

P r e p a r i n g t h ep e r f o r m a n c eassessment system

• Conducti ng an in-depthiden ca on of the exis ngprocedures for repor ng andperformance assessment

• Determining cri cal factorsof performance assessmentfor achieving measurementobjec vity.

• Determining the assessment

and evaluat ion of theperformance of personnel,units and organiza ons

D o c u m e n t o f s y s t e m o fp e r f o r m a n c e a s s e s s m e n t /evaluation of personnel andworking units









Career Management (6)

Preparing the careerpattern of positionholders/personnel

Analyzing the characteris cs ofexisting positions by viewingthe basis for posi on analysis,posi on evalua on and posi onrank.

Document of personnel careerpa t t e rn sys t em in fo rmingpersonnel’s career path both inthe structural career domain andfunc onal career domain whichare speci c and special ver cally,diagonally or horizontally.

As a judiciary institution prioritizing the

principles of professionalism, integrity as

well as competence, the Constitutional Court

attempts to develop Human Resources (HR).

HR constitutes one of the key factors of

successful materialization of vision and

mission of the Constitutional Court and

becomes an important part in assisting the

Constitutional Court in performing its functions

and authority.

The principle of professionalism applied by the

Constitutional Court bears an understanding

that all the works are performed and

completed by HR having appropriate capability

and expertise for obtaining maximum results.

The Constitutional Court always materializes

professional HR based on competence and

with high integrity. Various policy strategies

for improving HR have been applied by the

Constitutional Court, among other things

through the preparation of the analysis

of HR requirements, personnel recruitment

in accordance with the needs of the

organization with fair, honest and transparent

mechanism supplemented with and based on

a comprehensive position analysis as well as

enforcement of personnel code of conduct.

In line with the vision and mission for

creating the Constitutional Court as a credible

branch of judicial power and for developing

Indonesian constitutionality and a culture of

constitutional awareness, the Constitutional

Court has applied more focused efforts in

preparing and developing professional and

reliable HR on a consistent and continuous

basis. For providing reliable and professional

services, skilled personnel are needed. The


of the Constitutional Court always attempts

to improve the professionalism of all existing

HR. Preparation of skilled personnel is very

useful and proportionate to the efforts for

supporting professionalism of an institution.

In 2011, personnel recruitment has been

conducted in accordance with the needs of

the organization. Meanwhile, HR development

has been made among other things through

the improvement of personnel’s education

level trough education and training as well

as through the Career Path program. Such

programs constitute the long-term programs

of the Secretariat General and the Registrar’s

Office of the Constitutional Court for creating

excellent, reliable and professional human

resources.

Professionalism, Integrity and Competence of Human Resources (HR)









Education and Training on the Procedural

Law of the Constitutional Court, Education

and Training on Supervision Management,

Education and Training on Procurement of

Goods and Services, English Education and

Training, Application Management Education

and Training and Performance Improvement

Education and Training.

Meanwhile, the scope of education andtraining attended covers the fields of trainings

of English, financial management consolidation,

data processing and archive, supervision

management up to information technology

system. Data processing and archive for state

institutions as well as other institutions are

so important because archive constitutes a

record and data which can describe the

roles and history serving the function of

identifying the progress or setback in the

development of an institution. The Participation

Education and Training in 2011 has been

conducted with resource persons from various

institutions, namely among other things,

BPKP, BKN, ANRI, State Secretariat, LIPI,

National Library, KPK, BPS, LAN, Ministry

of Transportation and Ministry of Defense.

Education and Trainings conducted include the

Education and Training of Auditors, Education

and Training on Technical Control, Education

and Training on Personnel Affairs, Education

and Training on Archive, Research Education

and Training, Library Education and Training,

TOT Agent of Change Education and Training,

ICT Education and Training, PIM Education

and Training, as well as Pre-Service Education

and Training.

In addition, the Constitutional Court has also

organized the career path. Career path is one

of the efforts to increase the knowledge and

professionalism of the personnel within the

purview of the Secretariat General and the

Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court.

This program has been conducted since the

establishment of the Constitutional Court to

the present. Career path is conducted by

sending the personnel to attend advanced

education, both S2 and S3, and diploma

program, within the country or overseas. The

fields of career path are, among others,

state administrative law, public administration

and policies, communication management and

personnel affairs studies.

Table 13

2011 Self-Management Education and Training

1 Educa on and Training for the Registrar’s O ce 50 APP2 Educa on and Training on the Procedural Law of the

Cons tu onal Court100 APP and Researchers

3 Educa on and Training on Supervision Management 200 All working units

4 Educa on and Training on Procurement of Goodsand Services

100 All working units

5 English Educa on and Training 70 All personnel and jus cesof the Cons tu onal Court

6 Educa on and Training on Applica on Management 45 All working units

7 Educa on and Training on Performance Increase 254 All personnel and jus cesof the Cons tu onal Court

No Type of Educa on and TrainingNumber ofPar cipants

Working Unit




Pancasila Education




Improvement of Personnel’sWelfare

The strength and potentials of the personnel

must be in synergy with each other

optimally so that the welfare aspect is

required. Improved welfare of the personnel

will increasingly strengthen the synergy to

encourage the implementation of common

duties. The business form of cooperativeis considered in line with the mission of

improving personnel’s welfare. As referred

to in Law Number 25 Year 1992 regarding

Cooperatives, a cooperative serves the function

of and role of developing the potentials

and capability of its members in particular

and the community in general. Its goal is

not merely the improvement of economic

welfare, but also social welfare. Through a

cooperative managed together, the personnel

will also share the responsibility for their

common welfare.

The Cooperative Unit of the Constitutional

Court was established on April 29, 2008.

Up to 2011, the cooperative unit has run

properly in conducting its business. So far, a

number of lines of business in the framework

of increasing the personnel’s welfare have

run, namely among other things:

a. Bookstore and Souvenirs This business unit serves the needs of

personnel and visitors of the Constitutional

Court for the newest books on law and

state administration. The number of stocks

and variations continue to be increased

plus the maintenance of relationship with

publishers.

b. Publication

Improvements continue to be made in

publishing law books. In addition, the

relationship with other publishers is always

improved especially in terms of financing

and marketing of books.

c. Cafeteria

Six counters have been opened, providing

various kinds of menu from many regions,

located on basement I.

d. Coffee Shop

In addition to a canteen, the cooperative

has also opened 1 coffee shop serving

various kinds of beverages, warm and

cold, as well as snacks, located on

ground floor in front of the lobby.

e. Department Store

This business provides various types of

basic needs, using a selling system like

in mini markets in general, located at

the main lobby.

f. Travel Bureau

The Cooperative of the Constitutional

Court also serves the booking of airplane

tickets and hotel accommodation.

g. Banking Services

The establishment of BRI Treasury Office

in the complex of the Constitutional Court

Building has facilitated personnel’s access

to banking services.

h. Supply of Newspapers and Magazines

Procurement of newspapers and magazines

since 2008 for Constitutional Court

Justices and officials of the Secretariat


Constitutional Court has been handled

by the cooperative.

In order to increase the welfare of the

personnel through the Constitutional Court’s

Cooperative (Koperasi Konstitusi), in 2011









BMN (Barang Milik Negara or State-Owned

Property) has been utilized in the form of

building or structure rent namely the Multi

Purpose Building, Center for Education and

Training Room and Center for Education

and Training Boarding House located at the

official housing of the Constitutional Court

in Bekasi.

In addition, in the daily implementation

of their duties, the personnel get health

services. In the policlinic of the Constitutional

Court, an ambulance has been provided for

emergency situations. Within the environment

of Constitutional Court Building, a mailing

room facility is also available, providing

delivery and receipt services for letters or

documents Postal services.

Table 14Participation Education and Training Year 2011

No Type of Educa on and TrainingNumber ofPar cipants

Organizer

1 Audi to r s ’ Educa t ion andTraining

1 BPKP

2 Education and Training onTechnical Control

2 BPKP

3 Education and Training onPersonnel A airs

2 BKN

4 Education and Training onArchive

5 ANRI and State Secretariat

5 R e s e a r c h E d u c a t i o n a n dTraining

5 LIPI

6 Library Educa on and Training 4 Na onal Library7 Educa on and Training of TOT

Agent of Change16 KPK

8 ICT Educa on and Training 5 BPS and State Secretariat9 Educa on and Training of PIM

II, III, IV10 LAN RI, Ministry of Transporta on, and

Center for Educa on and Training forSupervisors of BPKP

10 Pre-Service Education andTraining

24 Ministry of Defense of the Republic ofIndonesia

Administration Strengthening

Public trust to the Constitutional Court is

reflected, among other things, in the letters

delivered in relation to the petition as well

as legal protection, response to the 1945

Constitution, research applications, expression

of gratitude and statements. Such documents,

for the last eight years, have indicated a

great spirit with respect to issues of law

and the constitution, particularly the role of

the Constitutional Court as the guardian of

the constitution.

The Constitutional Court has maintained

correspondence with the community and




Pancasila Education




other institutions. The Secretariat General

and Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional

Court have endeavored to respond to such

documents as the form of service to the

community and other institutions. To the

extent it is related to petitions, the incoming

documents are submitted to the administration

bureau for case hearing. Such scripts and

documents are not only arranged according

to administrative order but they are alsodigitized.

As a form of accountability to the next

generation, archives of cases are arranged

in such a way to be submitted to the

National Archive of the Republic of Indonesia

(ANRI) according to the mandate of Law No.

7 Year 1971 regarding Archives. In 2011,

the Constitutional Court has delivered case

archives to the National Archive of the

Republic of Indonesia for 6 times with the

quantity of archives delivered being 1,462

boxes of textual archives, 1,032 tapes of

voice record archives, 311 CDs of voice

record archives, 27 CDs of video archives

and 192 archives of media transfer. The

delivery of archives is as follows.

Based on the results of performanceassessment in archive management especially

the commitment of the Constitutional

Court for saving archives as the national

accountability materials, on November 15,

2011, the Constitutional Court received an

award as the Model Archive Unit I Year

2011 at the Ministry/Central Institution Level

from the National Archive of the Republic

of Indonesia.

No.Date ofDelivery

Types ofArchive

Year

Quan ty

Text Recording Video Digital

1 January 17,2006

Case Files 2003 - 2005 138 boxes(76 cases)

539 tapes

2. September 6,2006

2003 - 2006 39 boxes(27 cases)

122 tapes,11 CDs

3. July 4, 2008 2006 - 2007 44 boxes(44 case)

371 tapes,61 CDs

44 CDs

4. December 1,2009

2009 642 boxes(67 cases)

174 CDs 67 CDs

5. July 7, 2010 2007 - 2009 257 boxes(81 cases)

65 CDs 27 CDs 81 CDs

6. July 15, 2011 2010 342 boxes

Total 1,462 boxes1032tapes, 311CDs

27 CDs 192 CDs

Table 15The Submission of the Constitutional Court’s Case Files to ANRI during the period of

2003-2011









1. Procurement of Land Area forDevelopment of the Center forEducation and Training

For disseminating information on the duties

and authority of the Constitutional Court

to the general public, the support for the

implementation of duties and authority of the

Constitutional Court so far is not separatedfrom the support of resources and funds

which become the motor of all activities

at the Constitutional Court. One of the

resources which become an important part

in the development of the institution of the

Constitutional Court is human resources in the

Constitutional Court. It must be recognized

that human resources become the main

capital in organizational development. The

progress and setback of an organization is

inseparable from, among other things, humanresources within the institution.

With such thought as the background, the

Constitutional Court deems it necessary to

develop and improve the human resources

in terms of not only the quantity but also

from the aspect of quality (capability). The

process of planning up to development of

human resources in the Constitutional Court

constitutes an inseparable process which has

been conducted by the apparatuses of theConstitutional Court. The efforts of human

resource development have been made in

sustainable manner along with the increase in

the quality of apparatuses through education

and training. However, such education and

training activities so far have been faced with

various obstacles, one of which being the

support of facilities and infrastructure in such

activities. It must be acknowledged that the

Constitutional Court has not owned adequate

building and boarding house for the center of

Head of the NationalArchive of the Republic

of Indonesia presentsan award to the

Constitutional Court asthe Model Archive Unit

I Year 2011 for Ministry/Central Institution Level,

personally received bythe Secretary General

of the Constitutional

Court, Janedjri M. Gaffaron (15/11) in Bumikarsa

Bidakara Hotel


Improvement of Facilities and Infrastructure




Pancasila Education




education and training so that all the activities

of education and training of the Constitutional

Court cannot be optimally conducted yet. For

the purpose of materializing and developing

human resources as the support for the

implementation of duties and authority of the

Constitutional Court along with the efforts to

give support to constitutional court justices,

the Constitutional Court plans to develop

the Building of the Center for Pancasila andConstitution Education located at Jalan Raya

Puncak Bogor, RT.003/RW13, Tugu Selatan

Sub-District, Cisarua District, Bogor Regency,

West Java on a land area of 14,282 M2.

The Building of the Center for Pancasila

and Constitution Education is badly needed

not only for developing and increasing the

quality of HR of the Constitutional Court

through education and training activities,

both those related to job competence inthe Constitutional Court and to disseminate

information on the duties and authority of the

Constitutional Court to the Community. The

provision of the Building of the Center for

Pancasila and Constitution Education becomes

an agenda which has been planned by the


of the Constitutional Court in supporting the

Constitutional Court in keeping and organizing

the life as a nation and a state based on

the 1945 Constitution.

In relation to that, the efforts of constitutional

court justices to materialize one vision of

the Constitutional Court to develop Indonesian

constitutionality and disseminating a culture

of constitutional awareness. In Budget Year

2011, the Constitutional Court has provided

excellent services to constitutional court

justices and the community, namely preparing

and providing facilities and infrastructure in

the form of land area on which the Building

of the Center for Pancasila and Constitution

Education is to be built.

The land needed for the development of

the Building of the Center for Pancasila and

Constitution Education is located at Jalan

Raya Puncak Bogor Neighborhood Ward 003/

Neighborhood Block 13, Tugu Selatan Sub-

District, Cisarua District, Bogor Regency, West

Java covering an area of 14,282 M2 withall other supporting facilities, such as: sports

facilities, meeting building, garden, pedestrian

walkway, and so on. The location of the

land has been selected based on prioritized

consideration of clean air, cool air, freedom

from noise and travel distance which is not

too far so that it is ideal to build a Center

for Pancasila and Constitution on it.

2. P r o c u r e m e n t o f O f f i c eEquipment

For the purpose of giving administrative support

and excellent services to the constitutional

court justices, the officials, personnel within

the purview of the Constitutional Court as well

as to the general public, for the uninterrupted

implementation of the duties and functions

of the Constitutional Court in the continuity

of routine works in 2011, the Constitutional

Court has proposed the plan for BMN write-

off obtained in Year 2003-25 in the form ofcomputers, laptops, desks-chairs and other

equipment in severely damaged condition.

To replace BMN which will be written-off, in

2011, office equipment tenders have been

conducted, in the form of:

a. Tender for the procurement of computers/

PC, notebooks and other office

equipment.

b. Tender for the procurement of furniture

(desks, chairs, roll opack, etc.)









3. Development of Area Hydrant

Development of official housing of the

Constitutional Court where several state

buildings, such as: inventory storehouse,

education and training building, multipurpose

building, education and training boarding house,

sports and religious worship infrastructure

would be built was completed in 2008. For

the purpose of optimizing and improvingthe function of newly-installed hydrants, one

point at the state buildings, in Budget Year

2001, a tender has been conducted for the

installation of area hydrant for improving

the existing hydrants to become 16 points

of hydrants.

4. Maintenance of Official Housesand Improvement of the Structureof the Fuel Tank for Power

GeneratorDevelopment of official houses of the

Constitutional Court on which there are

several state buildings such as, among

other things: inventory storehouse, education

and training building, multipurpose building,

education and training boarding house,

sports and religious worship infrastructure

would be built was completed in 2008. To

anticipate more severe damage to the official

houses which have not been lived in by the

personnel and other buildings due to age,

then in 2011, a tender has been conducted

for the maintenance of official houses and

repair of the structure of the fuel tank for

power generator of the Constitutional Court’s

buildings which was leaking.

5. Procurement of Driver’s Service

Comfortable and safe transportation facilities

are required for constitutional court justices to

organize hearing according to the determined

time schedule. In addition, transportation is

also required for delivering letters, hearing

summons, and delivery of hearing documents

to all the relevant parties in a case.

Transportation is also required for the

operation of the office and chairperson

of the Constitutional Court in conducting

various office activities other than hearings.

The availability of transportation facilities inthe form of cars must be supported by

the availability of drivers, both those for

constitutional court justices and drivers for

office operations so that all office activities

of the Constitutional Court can be quickly

organized.

Procurement of driver’s service began in

2008 until now through the public tender

process. Procurement of driver’s service to

operate transportation facilities that theConstitutional Court has possessed namely the

procurement of drivers is required to support

the office operations and constitutional court

justices requiring such transportation facilities.

Required drivers are those with the skill of

driving comfortably and safely being properly

managed to provide excellent services for

constitutional court justices and optimally

fulfilling the transportation needs.

6. P r o c u r e m e n t o f B u i l d i n gManagement Services

Building maintenance is integral to the

development of the building itself. Being

aware of it, the Secretariat General and the

Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court

has provided building management services

in the Constitutional Court Building at Jalan

Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6, official houses

of justices and complex of the multipurpose

building, education and training building,




Pancasila Education




Table 16

Activities for the Administration of State-Owned Assets of the Constitutional Court 2011

education and training boarding house,

as well as inventory storehouse at Jalan

Kartini, Bekasi, through a tender process.

The management of the Constitutional Court

Building and complex of state housing in

Bekasi covers housekeeping such as cleaning

service, sanitation and health, pest control,

and garbage management; safeguarding

and order management; management and

maintenance of M/E utilities; civil works; andmanagement services.

The Service for the management of the

Building of the Constitutional Court of the

Republic of Indonesia has been implemented

as from October 2007, and in Budget

Year 2011 a tender process would be

conducted.

7. Administration of State-OwnedAssets

Law No. 1 Year 2004 regarding State

Treasury and Government Regulation No. 6

Year 2006 have mandated the importance of

administration of State-Owned Property (BMN).

To perform such mandate, the Constitutional

Court has conducted a tender for the work

of Asset Tracking for BMN for developingthe SIMAK-BMN application and conducting

a series of activities of BMN administration

within the purview of the Constitutional Court

using the barcode system, so as to facilitate

the checking of BMN transfers. Activities

which have been conducted in 2011 are

as follows:

No. Ac vi es

1. Collec on of data and stock opname involving all working units within the purview ofthe Cons tu onal Court

2. Management of data in the applica on of State-Owned Property Accoun ng System/SABMN, consis ng of:a. Collec on of documents of source data from contracts, SPK, SPM, SP2D.b. Transla on of the data of assets in source documents into the language of the SABMN

applica on by involving all working units under the supervision of the personnel ofthe Directorate General of BMN Development of the Ministry of Finance, conductedfor contracts for exis ng goods.

c. Input/data entry into the SABMN implemented for exis ng contracts/goods.3. Assessment of the assets as the addi onal duty for organizing BMN of the Ministry of

Finance in the Cons tu onal Court.

4. Comple ng the administra on of proposal for lost/severely damaged goods for thepurpose of BMN write-o lost from the inventory books.

5. Prin ng and re-labeling of all assets or goods

6. Making and placement of DIR

7. Re-classi ca on has been conducted for assets/BMN/buildings at the o cial housingof the Cons tu onal Court of the Republic of Indonesia in Bekasi

8. The SIMAK BMN applica on has been applied for inventory goods (sta onery, publica onmaterials, medicine) in the report of semester I Budget Year 2011.







DEVELOPING THESYNERGY OF THECONSTITUTIONALCOURT, RESEARCH,AND PANCASILAEDUCATION




Pancasila Education




DEVELOPING THE SYNERGY OF THECONSTITUTIONAL COURT, RESEARCH, AND

PANCASILA EDUCATION

As the executor of judicial power which

has been making continuous efforts to

maintain independency and transparency

in enforcing law and justice, the Constitutional

Court needs the support from various parties,

either from national institutions, components

of the public or universities, by establishing

cooperation in many areas. The cooperationis aimed at creating a good relationship,

providing mutual support, information, inputs

as well as advice to discuss various issues

of the nation and the state. In addition, the

parties cooperating with the Constitutional Court

are expected to become agents of change,

to participate in disseminating information

concerning the role and existence of the

Constitutional Court, as well as to participate

in taking responsibility for developing the

culture of constitutional awareness amongall circles.

Memorandum of Understanding

Throughout 2011, the Constitutional Court has

established cooperation with the Corruption

Eradication Commission (KPK), the Audit

Board (BPK), the National Archives of the

Republic of Indonesia (ANRI), PT. Industri

Telekomunikasi Indonesia (INTI), the People’sConsultative Assembly (MPR), the People’s

Legislative Assembly (DPR), the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education and

Culture, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the

Air Force (AU), the Army (AD), the Navy (AL),

Fatayat Nahdlatul Ulama, the Cipayung Group,

the Students’ Executive Board of University

of Indonesia, Leimena Institute, the General

Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu), Muslimat

Nahdlatul Ulama, Puan Amal Hayati, the Women

of Serikat Islam, the Muhammadiyah Youth,Hanns Siedel Foundation (HSF) of Indonesia,

The Synergy of the Constitutional CourtChief Justice of theConstitutional CourtMahfud MD andChairman of the AuditBoard Hadi Poernomoaccompanied by theSecretary Generalof the ConstitutionalCourt Janedjri M.Gaffar and Memberof the Audit BoardHasan Bisri enteredthe password asthe sign of thelaunching of e-audit,as the result of thecooperation betweenthe ConstitutionalCourt and the AuditBoard, on Wednesday(24/8) at the hall onthe ground oor of theConstitutional CourtBuilding.


Strengthening Domestic Cooperation







Gadjah Mada University (UGM) of Yogyakarta,

North Sumatera University (USU) of Medan.

In the field of law, the Constitutional Court

has established cooperation with the Corruption

Eradication Commission in order to establish

a Gratuity Control Unit aimed at creating a

controlled environment which is free from

Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism (KKN)

practices. In addition, the Constitutional Court

has also established cooperation with the AuditBoard in relation to the responsibility of the

management in controlling fraudulent practices,

which are inherent in every process, namely

among other things: planning, organization as

well as program operation.

In the field of administration, the Constitutional

Court has signed a memorandum of

understanding with the National Archives of

the Republic of Indonesia (ANRI) concerning

the management of document salvage &preservation. The Constitutional Court and

the National Archives of the Republic of

Indonesia utilize the resources and facilities

of the Constitutional Court and the National

Archives of the Republic of Indonesia. This

cooperation is intended to be a form

of accountability for the management of

documents and archives as well as hearing

files of the Constitutional Court to the state

and the public. Meanwhile, in the field of

Information Technology, the Constitutional Court

has established cooperation with PT. IndonesiaTelecommunications Industry (INTI) in relation

to the e-Perisalah (court recording) aimed at

conducting review and development as well

as implementation of information technology

facilities and infrastructure at the Constitutional

Court. This cooperation is also aimed at

improving legal services to the public through

the implementation of hearing sessions of the


In the field of constitutional awarenesseducation, the Constitutional Court has

The ConstitutionalCourt signed

memorandum ofunderstanding with

the National Archivesof the Republic of

Indonesia on themanagement of salvage& preservation of state

archives/documentsand the memorandum

of understanding

on e-Perisalah withPT. INTI as well as

the launching ofe-procurement service

on Thursday (13/1)at the hall on the

ground oor of theConstitutional Court

Building





Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

established cooperation with the People’s

Consultative Assembly. This cooperation is

intended to increase the understanding of

the constitution among state administration

apparatuses and the public, as well as to

develop the culture of constitutional awareness

among state administration apparatus and

the public. The Constitutional Court has also

established cooperation with the Ministry of

Education and Culture and the Ministry ofReligious Affairs concerning the implementation

of the Constitution Award 2011 for Civics (PKn)

Teachers. The presentation the Constitution

Award for Civics Teachers is basically aimed

at promoting the enthusiasm and motivation

of Civics teachers in performing their tasks of

developing the intellectual life of the nation,

promoting the development of the culture of

constitutional awareness among Civics teachers

and students, particularly at schools and among

the people at large.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has

established cooperation with the national

police of the Republic of Indonesia, the

Air Force, the Army, the Navy, Fatayat NU,

the Cipayung Group, the Students’ Executive

Board of University of Indonesia, the Ministry

of Religious Affairs, the Ministry of National

Education, Leimena Institute, the General

Election Supervisory Board, Muslimat NU, Puan

Amal Hayati, the Women of Serikat Islam,and the Muhammadiyah Youth concerning the

implementation of Pancasila Education, the

Constitution, and the Constitutional Court’s

Procedural Law. The cooperation is performed

through talk shows, seminars, workshops,

etc. This cooperation is intended for the

Constitutional Court and those institutions

to be mutually supportive and to play roles

in the efforts of disseminating information

about the constitutional awareness education,

to be understood by all segments of the

community. In addition, the Constitutional

Court has also established cooperation with

universities. The Constitutional Court has

established cooperation with Gadjah Mada

University (UGM) of Yogyakarta as set out

in a memorandum of understanding (MoU)

in the effort of developing enculturation of

Pancasila as the ideology of the state and

the constitution as the constitutional foundation

of the state through education and training.One of the implementation activities was the

implementation of the National Symposium 2011

“the Implementation of the Values of Pancasila

in the Enforcement of the Constitutionality of

Indonesia” that explored strategies and efforts

for repositioning the values of Pancasila

as the orientation of the enculturation of

constitutional life. Furthermore, the Constitutional

Court has established cooperation with North

Sumatra Muhammadiyah University (USU)

of Medan to disseminate information anddevelop a constitutional awareness culture.

The Constitutional Court has also established

cooperation with the Center for Constitutional

Studies (Pusat Kajian Konstitusi), represented by

several state universities throughout Indonesia

in relation to a broadcasting program on

the Constitution on RRI. It also includes

cooperation between the Constitutional Court

and several state universities in Indonesia

related to the implementation of a debate

on the Constitution.

No less important was the cooperation

between the Constitutional Court and the

People’s Legislative Assembly, concerning a

plan for the implementation of the International

Symposium on Constitutional Democratic

State which was held in July 2011, with

the objective of improving Indonesia’s role

in building and developing International

dialogue and cooperation in the application,

reinforcement, and enforcement of democraticand constitutional values at the global level.







Visits of National Institutions and

Community Organizations to theConstitutional Court

The Constitutional Court is open the greatest

possible extent to visits by all parties,

including national institutions and community

organizations. The visits are intended to ensure

that the visitors can understand the authorities

and obligations of the Constitutional Court, as

well as constitutional democracy awareness, so

that they will be able to put it into practice

in the implementation of daily state life. Atleast, the visits of national institutions and

community organizations to the Constitutional

Court indicate that the Constitutional Court

has been organized as a credible institution,

namely a democratic modern judiciary for

justice seekers (justisiabelen) in accordance

with the mandate of Pancasila and the 1945

Constitution.

Throughout 2011, a number of national

institutions visited the Constitutional Court,for example, the Commissioners of the

Judicial Commission (KY). This meeting was

the manifestation of the strong commitment

of the Constitutional Court and the Judicial

Commission aimed at creating and guarding

the judiciary which is clean and free

from Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism.

Subsequently, the Constitutional Court was

visited by the Members of Commission XI of

the People’s Legislative Assembly. Their visit

was related to the arrangement of the budget

of Bank Indonesia (BI) as provided for in Law

No. 3/2004 concerning Amendment to Law

No. 23/1999 concerning Bank Indonesia (BI

Law). The Constitutional Court also received

a visit of a number of Members of the

Health Committee of the People’s Legislative

Assembly which was aimed at asking for

inputs and advice concerning the Draft Law

on Social Security Implementing Agency (BPJS).

Furthermore, in relation to the plan for the

purchase of Newmont shares, the Constitutional

Court received the visit of the Minister of

Finance, Agus Martowardojo, who revealed the

chronology of the plan for the purchase ofNewmont shares.

After the meeting ofthe Constitutional

Court (MK) and theJudicial Commission

(KY), on Monday(10/1), Justice of theConstitutional Court

Ahmad Fadlil Sumadiwas seen shakinghands with one of

the members of theJudicial Commission.





Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

In addition, external parties also came

to conduct comparative studies at the

Constitutional Court, including among others,

the visit of the Delegation of the Regional

People’s Legislative Assembly of West Java

aimed at conducting a comparative study

related to the implementation of e-perisalah

in the Constitutional Court (MK). In addition,

the Excellent Service Team of the National

Commission on Human Rights (Tim PelayananPrima Komnas HAM) conducted a comparative

study on the Constitutional Court (MK), including

a discussion concerning judicial administration

scheme in the Constitutional Court. Another

visit was paid by the Delegation of the

Ministry of Finance (Kemkeu) of the Republic

of Indonesia for conducting a comparative

study on information technology (IT) at the

Constitutional Court. Last but not least, a

Delegation of the National Commission on

Women visited the Constitutional Court (MK)to conduct a comparative study on the

management of hearing sessions taking place

in the Constitutional Court.

There were also visits intended merely

to directly see the performance of the

Constitutional Court, such as libraries, archives,

technologies, etc, including, the visit of librarians

of the Audit Board from various regions to

learn about various things related to the

management of the Constitutional Court’s library.

The participants of the Education and Training

for candidates of Expert Level Librarians of

the National Library also visited the libraryof the Constitutional Court. In addition, the

Constitutional Court received the visit of the

participants of the education and training for

the leadership of regional archive institutions,

which was organized by the National Archives

of the Republic of Indonesia. The participants

of the education and training received training

materials about the Constitutional Court

and how to file a petition for a case to

the Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the

Constitutional Court received a visit from thecabinet secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia

(Setkab RI) which was represented by the

Deputy Assistant of the Public Relations and

Chief Justice ofthe ConstitutionalCourt Mahfud MD,Vice Chief Justiceof the ConstitutionalCourt Ahmad Sodiki,along with four other

constitutional court justices, Ahmad FadlilSumadi, MuhammadAlim, Maria FaridaIndrati and HamdanZoelva, receivedsome members ofCommission XI of thePeople’s LegislativeAssembly whoconsulted to theConstitutional Courton Friday (11/2) atthe Delegation Roomof the ConstitutionalCourt.








Institutional Affairs of the Cabinet Secretariat

of the Republic of Indonesia in order to

learn about various technologies used by the

Constitution Court, especially the e-perisalah

system (court recording system). In another

visit, the Constitutional Court received the group

of participants of the Education and Training

for Candidates for Integrated Justices of the

General Jurisdiction Courts, Religious Courts

and State Administration Courts. The purposeand objective of their visit were to learn about

all information and knowledge concerning the

Constitutional Court’s institution.

The Constitutional Court also received visits

by a number of community organizations,

namely the visit of members of the Inter-faith

Dialogue Society (Madia) - an institution that

has a major concern in the field of inter-

faith dialogue. The visit was aimed to follow

up the previous meetings, the administrativeproblems related to the adherents of faith in

Indonesia. In addition, the Constitutional Court

received a visit by the Executive Board of the

Muslim Students’ Association (PB HMI) which

discussed the possibility of cooperation in

providing awareness of constitutional rights to

the public. Furthermore, the visit of Volunteers

for Change activists was aimed at requesting

the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court

to give an enlightenment and clear description

related to the current development of the world

of law in Indonesia. Next, the Chairman of

the Board of Trustees of the National Social

Network Community of Indonesia visited the

Constitutional Court to report various activities

that they had conducted, including to convey

a number of weaknesses in Law No. 40/2004

concerning National Social Security System

(SJSN). In addition, the Constitutional Court

received visit by the Central Administrators

of the Family of the Students and Alumni

of the Supersemar Scholarship Winners (PP

KMAPBS) who planned to establish cooperation

with the Constitutional Court, one of them

being through the Talk Show program with


Visits by the InternationalInstitutions

In addition to building cooperation with national

institutions and community organizations, theConstitutional Court has also been widely open

to other world institutions that wanted to visit

and to know better about the Constitutional

Court. Visits of international institutions have,

in fact, diverse benefits and objectives, as a

forum to exchange ideas, to share information

and experiences concerning their respective

institutions.

In 2011, the Constitutional Court received the

visit by the Ambassador of the United States,Scot Alan Marlein. During the meeting, the Chief

Justice of the Constitutional Court explained

that the Constitutional Court is parallel to

the Supreme Court in order to guarantee the

enforcement of law and democracy as the

impact of the 1998 Reform in Indonesia. In

addition, the Head of the Judicial Relations

Committee of the United States Oscar Lane

visited the Constitutional Court to discuss the

development of law and independence of the

judicial institution.

Subsequently, the Australian Ambassador

Greg Moriarty conducted a courtesy call to

the Constitutional Court, who was received

personally by the Chief Justice of the

Constitutional Court Mahfud MD, that discussed

the cooperation in the development of law

in Indonesia. Also, the Chief Justice of the

Constitutional Court Mahfud MD accompanied

by the Vice Chief Justice of the Constitutional

Court Ahmad Sodiki received a visit by Kurt




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

The Secretary Generalof the ConstitutionalCourt Janedjri M.Gaffar accompaniedby Registrar KasianurSidauruk and Headof Public Relations& Protocol NoorSidhartha received avisit of the Head ofthe Judicial Relations

Committee of theUnited States OscarLane and his group inorder to discuss thedevelopment of lawand independence ofthe judicial institution,on Monday (21/3),at the ConstitutionalCourt Building.


Carroll and Kelly Buchanan from the Law Library

of Congress Washington DC, United States

(U.S.). Kurt and Kelly visited the Constitutional

Court accompanied by Field Director of the

Library of Congress of the U.S. Embassy in

Jakarta, William Tuchrello. All the three visited

the Constitutional Court with the intention to

know the collection and the performance of

administration system of the Constitutional

Court’s Library.

The Constitutional Court was also visited by

international institutions of Asian and African

countries. For example, the Delegation of

Afghanistan wanted to learn from Indonesia

in relation to a several matters, especially

the general election issues. The Constitutional

Court also received a visit by members of

the Nigerian National Resilience Institution

who got complete description of the history

of Indonesia’s independence, the history of

Indonesian constitution, including the background

of the establishment of the Constitutional

Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The

subsequent international visit was paid by the

Iranian Ambassador for Indonesia Muhammad

Farazandeh to the Constitutional Court. The

brief visit discussed many things, including the

socio-political developments in Iran.

International Cooperation

The Constitutional Court continues to establish

cooperation to establish its presence in

the eyes of the world, both regionally and

globally. Regional cooperation is cooperation

between the countries in the same region

or area, to create a harmonious relationship,

the cooperation of the Constitutional Court

with countries in a particular region. In 2011,

the Constitutional Court did not conduct







any regional cooperation with other nations.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court established

global cooperation to strengthen the existence

of the Constitutional Court in the eyes of

other countries, for example conducting a

working visit of the Constitutional Court

Justices to the Constitutional Courts of other

countries, participating in the activities of the

Constitutional Courts of other countries, also

including the implementation of international

level activities of the Constitutional Court in

Indonesia.

In 2011, the Constitutional Court has established

global cooperation when the Chief Justice of

the Constitutional Court Mahfud MD attended

the 2nd Congress of the World Conference

on Constitutional Justice in Brazil. The Chief

Justice of the Constitutional Court of the

Republic Indonesia Mahfud MD also visitedRussia in order to attend the Commemoration

of the Anniversary of the Constitutional Court

of Russia. In addition, the Chief Justice of the

Constitutional Court visited the Constitutional

Court of Azerbaijan and the Constitutional Court

of Kazakhstan, in relation to exploring the

possibilities to establish cooperation between

the two countries.

International Symposium

A democratic state requires the principle of

people’s sovereignty in the pillars of the

state administration. The principle of people’s

sovereignty is generally in the form of the

delegation to the people the making of political

decisions in the state life. In the principle

of people’s sovereignty, the people assume

the important and essential position in the

administration of the state organization. On

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court

of the Republic ofIndonesia, Moh. Mahfud

MD and ConstitutionalCourt Justice Harjono,

posed together withthe participants of theWorld Conference on

Constitutional Justicein Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

(January 16-18, 2011).





Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

the other hand, however, the delegation to the

people is then realized to become the weakness

of democracy. Majority vote, of course, is not

always the truth, or even at any given time it

can be a turning point of the suppression of

democracy and human rights as fundamental

principles of democracy itself.

Therefore, to overcome these weaknesses,

democracy must be accompanied by nomocracy,which is the principle of rule of law which

states that the supreme power lies in the law.

In this matter, democracy must be implemented

in accordance with the frame and within the

corridor of law. The frame of law is needed

to ensure that democracy which is performed

actually leads to the agreed objectives and

through democratic ways as well. On the

other hand, in order that the law can be

the reference, basis, and frame for democracy,

then law must be made democratically. Lawshall not be interpreted as a command of

the ruler, but rather as a manifestation of

the will of the people.

In this context, there is a real connection

between the democratic state that emphasizes

the principle of people’s sovereignty and

nomocracy that follows the principle of rule

of law, namely that a democratic state

is essentially a constitutional state. In a

constitutional state, there is an integral system

of law which is culminated in the constitution

as the supreme law of the state. The position

of the constitution as the supreme law is

actually acquired because of the democratic

nature of the constitution itself, namely

that the constitution is an agreement of all

the people. In the constitution, democratic

values reside. Therefore, it can be said that

democracy is the main idea that underlies

the Constitution, and on the other hand, the

constitution is the legitimacy of democracy. The

integration of constitutionalism and democracy

is believed to be able to create an effective

but still limited system of government, namely

constitutional democracy.

In practice, the supremacy of the constitution

in many countries, even in countries which

are known to be democratic states, is not

as easy as it may be said to be or as

smooth as expected. Based on the foregoingdescription, if mapped, the most real challenge

in the practice of constitutional democracy

includes 3 (three) main areas. The first is to

ensure and to strive for judicial power which

has authority in guarding and maintaining

the constitution to be able to play a more

optimal role in strengthening the application

of the principles of constitutional democracy.

The second is to ensure that democratization

is performed in the process of law formation,

not only being intended in order that the lawformation is within the democratic corridor, it

terms of the procedural aspects, but also

in terms of the substantial aspect which is

based on and oriented towards the constitution.

The purpose is for laws and regulations

applied to be legally binding to all people

of the country, not to violate and to be

contradictory the constitution. The third is to

establish order and relationship among state

institutions through the implementation of

checks and balances mechanism to strengthen

the principles of democracy and nomocracy

as well as to guard the achievement of the

goals of democracy and law.

To address these challenges and also

to know, to find the comparison, and to

ensure the development of the practice of

constitutional democracy in various countries,

the Constitutional Court of the Republic of

Indonesia has established cooperation with the

People’s Legislative Assembly of the Republic







of Indonesia in organizing the International

Symposium with the theme of “Constitutional

Democratic State”. The background of the

selection of the theme was a desire to

know comprehensively the development of the

practices in various countries in implementing

and strengthening the implementation of

values of democracy and nomocracy in the

respective countries.

The symposium was also organized so that it

may serve as a forum for sharing information,

insights, and knowledge, especially on the

experience and practices in each participating

country. Thus, the results of this symposium are

expected to give positive contributions to the

implementation and strengthening of democratic

values for the enforcement of constitutional

democracy in each participating country. The

symposium which was held on July 10-13 2011at Shangri-La Hotel, Jakarta, was attended by

approximately 200 people, consisting of 100

participants from foreign countries consisting of

the Chief Justices of the Constitutional Courts

or similar institutions, and the Speakers of

Parliaments from 25 countries and 100 people

from within the country. The participants came

from: South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines,

Mongolia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Russia,

Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Brazil,Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Morocco,

South Africa, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Spain,

Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Indonesia. Subsequently,

domestic participants consisted of the Justices

of the Constitutional Court, Chairpersons of

the People’s Consultative Assembly of the

Republic of Indonesia, the People’s Legislative

Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia, and

the Regional People’s Consultative Assembly

of the Republic of Indonesia, Constitutional

Forums, and academicians/lecturers fromvarious universities in Indonesia.

Secretary Generalof the Constitutional

Court Janedjri M. Gaffarpresented the reporton the InternationalSymposium before

the President SusiloBambang Yudhoyonoand the Chief Justiceof the Constitutional

Court, Moh. Mahfud MDat the State Palace on

Monday (14 / 7).

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/Ray

Bachtiar







consequence of the will to realize a democratic

constitutional state and a democratic state

based on law as specified in the 1945

Constitution. In the context of a democratic

state, the law may be established through

a democratic mechanism while its substance

would be contradictory to democracy, meaning

that it would also be contradictory to the

constitution. The other background of the

establishment the Constitutional Court was theAmendment to the 1945 Constitution which

implied a shift and change in the state’s

power relations from the distribution of power

system into the separation of power system

within the framework of checks and balances

mechanism. The shift in the relations allowed

for conflicts or disputes over the authority

among state institutions.

Other speakers, the Chairperson of the

People’s Consultative Assembly Taufiq Kiemasdescribed constitutional reform as a reform

agenda which is a part of a nation’s effort

in making the arrangement of the concept

of statehood towards the implementation of

a more democratic and constitutional life of

the nation and state. Meanwhile, the Speaker

of the People’s Legislative Assembly Marzuki

Alie expressed the strengthening of democratic

values in the implementation of the three

functions of the People’s Legislative Assembly,

namely to form laws and regulations, to discussthe budget, to carry out the oversight function,

to be conducted by way of opening the space

for public participation. Public involvement is

essential in the process of formulating laws

and regulations, budget discussion process

and the implementation of the oversight

function. Furthermore, the Chairperson of the

Regional Representatives’ Council Irman Gusman

explained that this symposium had strong

relevance to the development of political life

in Indonesia.

Constitutional CourtJustices Anwar Usman

and Hamdan Zoelvawere following a

presentation duringThe International

Symposium onConstitutional

Democratic State inShangrila Hotel Jakarta,

Tuesday (12/7).

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/Yoga




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

After the presentation of such discussions,

symposium participants were grouped into three

panels, namely Panel I, Panel II, and Panel

III. Each panel consisted of three sessions to

discuss a focused and in-depth manner the

three sub-themes that had been determined.

Each country delegation participating in the

symposium conveyed ideas, views, experiences,

and practices in their respective countries

and discussed them in an in-depth manner.The main theme of the symposium, namely

“Constitutional Democratic State” was divided

into three sub-themes, namely the Role of

the Constitutional Court or Similar Institutions

in Strengthening the Principles of Democracy,

Democratization in the Process of Law

Formulation; as well as the Checks and

Balances Mechanism among the Branches of

State Power.

During the first session discussing Role ofthe Constitutional Court or Similar Institutions

in Strengthening the Principles of Democracy,

several key points were discussed, namely

among other things: regulation in the

constitution concerning the authority of the

Constitutional Court or similar institutions,

decisions of the Constitutional Court or

similar institutions (landmark decisions) in

relation to the strengthening of the principles

of democracy, as well as challenges and

obstacles faced in exercising the authority of

the Constitutional Court or similar institutions in

relation to the strengthening of the principles

of democracy. In Session One, Panel I

presented five speakers, namely Justice of the

Federal Constitutional Court of Germany Rudolf

Mellinghoff, Constitutional Court Justice of

Mongolia Dugerjav Munkhgerel, President of the

Constitutional Court of Colombia Juan Carlos

Henoa Perez, Chairman of the Constitutional

Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan Rogov

Igor Ivanovich, and Constitutional Court Justice

of the Republic of Indonesia Maria Farida

Indrati.

Meanwhile, for the Panel II, the speakers

were Constitutional Court Justice of Korea

Min Hyeong-Ki, Constitutional Court Justice of

Lithuania Toma Birmontiene, Constitutional Court

Justice of Chile Christian Suarez Crothers, and

Constitutional Court Justice of Spain Francisco

Perez de Los Cobos and Constitutional CourtJustice of the Republic of Indonesia Anwar

Usman. In Panel III, Five Constitutional Court

Justices from five countries explained the

roles of the Constitutional court in their

respective countries. They were Constitutional

Court Justice of Uzbekistan Uzak Barazov,

Constitutional Court Justice of the Kingdom

of Thailand Chalermpon Akeuru, Constitutional

Court Justice of Austria Johannes Shcnizer,

Constitutional Court Justice of Ukraine Mykhallo

Zaporozhets, and Constitutional Court Justiceof the Republic of Indonesia Ahmad Fadlil

Sumadi.

In the First Session, various facts were revealed,

namely among other things that the judicial

review of law under the Constitution is the

main authority possessed by the Constitutional

Court in almost all countries. However, the

Court also has other areas of authority,

based on varied regulations in the constitution

according to the needs and agreements

subsequently formulated into a constitution

of each country. Such varied regulations of

the authority of the Constitutional Court or

similar institutions lead to different roles in

strengthening the principles of democracy

in their respective countries. Similarly, the

challenges and obstacles which arise and

which must be faced in implementing these

powers imply different practices. The practices

of the Constitutional Court practices or similar

institutions in each country in exercising







authority or in facing the challenges and

obstacles were an important part conveyed

in this symposium. The experience is valuable

information for the Constitutional Court or

other similar state institutions. The sharing

and exchange of experience and information

become a necessity in the learning process

and in the struggle to uphold constitutional

democracy at the global level.

Meanwhile the Second Session discussing

the Democratization in the Process of Law

Formulation conveyed some basic thoughts,

namely how the lawmaking process is regulated

in each participating country, the role of society

in every country in the lawmaking process and

influence of the decisions of the Constitutional

Court or a similar institution on the lawmaking

process. The discussion of the theme was

divided into three panels. For panel I, there

were three speakers, namely Chairman of theLegislation Board of the People’s Legislative

Assembly Ignatius Mulyono, Chairman of the

Tribunal do Recurso of Timor-Leste Claudio

Ximenes, and Chairman of the Committee on

Legal Affairs of the Parliament of the Republic

of Lithuania Stasys Sedbaras. Meanwhile, for

Panel II, the speakers were Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court of the Philippines Renato

C. Corona, Chairperson of the Law Commission

of the People’s Legislative Assembly of the

Republic of Indonesia Benny K. Harman,and the First Vice-President of the People’s

Legislative Assembly of Morocco Mohammed

Abbou. Then, Panel III was filled by Member

of the Senate of Thailand Prajit Rojanaphruk

and Vice Chairman of the Inter-Parliament

Cooperation Board of the People’s Legislative

Assembly Azwar Abubakar.

During the aforementioned Session Two,

some main ideas that emerged were, among

other things, the expectation to implementdemocratization in the law-making process,

Constitutional CourtJustice M. Akil Mochtar

was presentingconclusions of Panel I

during The InternationalSymposium onConstitutional

Democratic State inShangrila Hotel Jakarta,

Tuesday (12/7).

Public Relations of theConstitutional Court/Yoga




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

where active participation of the community

becomes one that needs to be done. In

this case, the space and opportunity for the

people to be able to deliver their aspirations

are required. Furthermore, these aspirations

are accommodated proportionally by the law-

makers so that the formulated Laws are in

accordance with the needs and the will of

the people. Each country has its own way,

experience, and challenges or obstacles in thedemocratization of the formulation of laws.

The practice is determined by the rules of

the game specified either in the constitution

or inferior laws and regulations. Therefore, the

way the constitution of each state regulates

the process of Law formulation, including

community involvement in it, was the important

point conveyed in this symposium. In addition

to the aspects of procedure and substance of

the law formulation, the relationship between

law-making process and the existence of theConstitutional Court or similar institutions came

to the fore. In this case, the influence of

the decisions of the Constitutional Court or

a similar institution similar on the lawmaking

process is an important part expressed in

the forum.

During the Third Session with the theme of

checks and balances mechanism Among the

Branches of State Power, the main ideas

discussed under this sub-them were, among

other things, the regulation of the relations

among the branches of state power in the

Constitution, challenges and obstacles faced

in the implementation of checks and balances

among branches of state power and the

role of the Court or a similar institution

in implementing the checks and balances

among the branches of state power. Present

as speakers of panel I were Supreme Court

(MA) Justice of Mexico Margarita Beatriz

Luna, Constitutional Court Justice of Tajikistan

Gulzorova Muhabbat Mamadkarimovna, and

Constitutional Court Justice of the Republic of

Indonesia M. Akil Mochtar. In Panel II, there were

also three speakers, namely Vice Chairman of

the People’s Legislative Assembly of Colombia

Nidia Marcela Osorio Solgado, President of the

Parliament of Timor Leste Fernando La Sama

de Araujo, and Constitutional Court Justice

of the Republic of Indonesia Hamdan Zoelva.

Meanwhile, the speakers of Panel III includedChairman of the High Court of Malaya of the

Federal Court of Malaysia Tan Sri Arifin bin

Zakaria, Constitutional Court Justice of Turkey

Engin Yildirim, Vice Chairman of the People’s

Legislative Assembly Priyo Budi Santoso, and

Chairman of the Law Commission of the

National Assembly of Azerbaijan Ali Huseynli.

In the Third Session, the symposium participants

raised some views that in democratic countries,

the principle of checks and balances is anecessity to eliminate the abuse of power

or authority possessed by state institutions.

In general, the mechanism of checks and

balances regulated in the state constitution in

response to the need for preventing deadlock

in the separation of powers in the relations

among branches of power and for preventing

the abuse of power by any branch of power.

Therefore, the regulation of the relations among

branches of state power in the constitution

in each country became an important part

presented during this symposium. Subsequently,

the practice of each country in facing the

challenges and obstacles in the implementation

of checks and balances among branches

of state power was valuable information for

the participating countries in the symposium.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation

of checks and balances mechanism often

becomes the standard of the establishment

of the concept of rule of law state in order

to realize democracy in a country.







Meanwhile, in the implementation the checks

and balances mechanism, each state institution

possesses and plays an important role in

accordance with its position and authority.

One of the interesting and important things

to note is the role of the Constitutional Court

or a similar institution as a state institution

in the judicial branch of state power with

all the authority possessed. In this case,the information presented regarding the role

played by the Constitutional Court or a similar

institution in each country in implementing the

principle of checks and balances mechanism

was a valuable input for other states.

Meanwhile, in the Final Plenary Session of

“The International Symposium on Constitutional

Democratic State”, Panel I which was represented

by Constitutional Court Justice of the Republic

of Indonesia M. Akil Mochtar, conveyed that

the presence of the Constitutional Court and

similar institutions were believed to increase

the value of a country’s democracy. Most

delegates agreed that democracy is one of the

important social values in a democratic country

being explicitly stated in the constitution of

each country. Akil who read the conclusions

of Panel I continued that of all systems,

democracy is believed to be the best systemand is largely adopted by countries around

the world. In addition, in order to ensure

that the law-making process is based on the

principles and the values of democracy and

does not conflict with the constitution, the

involvement of courts or similar institutions

is a must.

The conclusion of Panel II, which was presented

by the Chairman of the Parliament of Timor

Leste Fernando La Sama de Araujo, stated that

Four speakers fromhigh state institutions

of the RepublicIndonesia were present

in the Second PlenarySession in Hotel

Shangri-La Hotel onMonday (11/7).





Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

the Constitutional Court and similar institutions

have a significant contribution in building a

democratic constitutional state, including in

strengthening the principles of democracy. Even

the Constitutional Court plays an important

role to preserve the living constitution, used

to guide the daily life and standards for all

actions of the state.

Subsequently, the conclusion of Panel III whichwas read by Tan Sri Arifin bin Zakaria, as

Chief Justice of the High Court of Malaysia,

stated that democracy is a very important

social value to be enforced in a democracy.

He continued that every Constitutional Court

has authority to interpret, define, and adjudicate

the constitutionality of laws that regulate the

executive, legislative, and judicial branches,

including the protection of human rights and

freedom of citizens. The Constitutional Court

is fully dedicated to work independently and

impartially, while prioritizing transparency and

equality among justices. In addition, he assertedthat the decisions of the Constitutional Court

decision shall bind all bodies of state power

as final and binding decisions.







Strengthening Research and Development

Talking about research and study must

not be separated from the meanings

of both words. Research is defined

as a thorough examination, an investigation,

or the activities of collecting, processing,

analyzing, and presenting data carried out

systematically and objectively to solve a

problem or to test a hypothesis to develop

general principles. Meanwhile the word study

is literally defined as the process, manner,

and act of conducting an in-depth studyor investigation.

According to the meanings of both words,

research and study are conducted by the

Constitutional Court by collecting, processing,

analyzing, and presenting data in a systematic

and objective manner. This is similar to the

activities of in-depth study carried out by


Efforts to explore something and to generate

new systematic and objective data are

deemed necessary for judicial institutions

such as the Constitutional Court. Moreover,

the Constitutional Court is not an ordinary

judicial institution as it is the judicial institution

which always puts in efforts to uphold a

constitutional democratic state.

To that end, the research and study

conducted by the Constitutional Court are

intended solely to produce a collection

researches or thoughts that support the

functions of the Constitutional Court as

a judicial institution which is enabled to

conduct judicial review of laws. In other

words, the research and study conducted

by the Constitutional Court are intended

to support the work of constitutional court

justices so as to produce an objective and

systematic decision on a case handled by


The following table presents some of the

researches conducted by researchers of the

Constitutional Court under the guidance of

experts.

Opening of the ConstitutionalCourt’s Coordination Meeting

with the Deans of Facultiesof Law.

Foto






Pancasila Education



MENGEMBANGKAN SINERGITAS MK,PENELITIAN DAN PENDIDIKAN PANCASILA

1. Disserta onBased

Basis of JuridicalConsidera on of the LegalStanding of Customary LawCommunity Unit in theJudicial Review Process in

the Cons tu onal Study

I Gede Yusa, S.H.,M.H

• Irfan NurRahman

• Ana Triningsing• Alia Harumdani

Widjaja

• NallomKurniawan

2. Disserta onBased

Compa bility ofSubstan a on System andInterpreta on of Jus ce inthe Se lement of Disputesover the Results of GeneralElec on of the RegionalHead

Mariyadi, S.H.,M.H

• Helmi Kasim• Rio Tri Juli

Putranto• Meyrinda

Rahmawa• Syukri Asyhari

3. Disserta onBased

Cons tu onalInterpreta on of theDisputes over Authorityof State Ins tu ons in theCons tu onal Court

Ichsan Anwary,S.H., M.H

• M. Mahrus Ali• Ti s Anindyaja• Winda Wijayan• Ajie Ramdan• AA Dian Onita

4. Non Disserta onBased

Special Status of theSpecial Territory ofYogyakarta in theDemocra c Frame Basedon the 1945 Cons tu on(Case Study on the Filingof the O ce of the Headof Region and Vice Head ofRegion)

Prof. SoetandyoWignjosoebroto,MPA

• Fajar Laksono• Helmi Kasim• Siswantana Putri R• Nuzul Qur’ani

Mardiya• Ajie Ramdan• Nallom Kurnia


Comparison of GeneralElec on Dispute Se lementMechanisms in SomeCons tu onal Democra cStates

Dr. I Dewa GedePalguna, S.h., M.H

• MeyrindaRahmawa

• Ana Triningsing• Alia Harumdani

Widjaja• Bisariyadi


Interpreta on of theCons tu onal Court ofSystema c, Structured, adMassive Viola ons in theGeneral Elec on of theHead of the Region

Prof. Abdul Muk eFadjar, S.H., M.S

• M. Mahrus Ali• Putria Gus Asih• Ti s Anindya Ja• Winda Wijayan• Rio Tri Juli Putranto• Irfan Nurrahman

Table 17

Research Activities of the Center for Research and Studyof the Constitutional Court Year 2011

No. Type of Research Title of Research Mentor Research Team







In addition to providing results for the scope

of the Constitutional Court, researches and

studies conducted also provide benefits to

the general public as well as academicians

and intellectuals. For example, the cooperation

of the Constitutional Court with the Centers

for Constitutional Studies (PKK) in various

universities in Indonesia has produced

researches or studies on the decisions of the

Constitutional Court and so on. The forum for

presenting the results of researches conductedby the Centers for Constitutional Studies is

the Konstitusi Journal, PKK edition.

The PKK Edition of Konstitusi Journal

accommodates the ideas of the academicians,

both lecturers and students. The researchers

conducted by the Centers for Constitutional

Studies (PKK) are never far from the function

and authority of the Constitutional Court, for

example, researches on the Constitutional

Court’s decisions and their implications incertain areas.

To support the researches whether or not

conducted by researchers of the Constitutional

Court as well as academicians associated

in the Centers for Constitutional Studies,

the Constitutional Court provides supporting

literatures in the Constitutional Court’s Library.

Various literatures in the Constitutional Court’s

Library cover the fields of law, geography,

philosophy, religion, applied science, and even

literature are available in the Constitutional

Court’s Library.

Such numerous collections of books are

intended for the sole purpose of supporting

the work of constitutional court justices and

researchers when they face various cases

entering into hearings of the Constitutional

Court. Moreover, cases entering the hearings

of the Constitutional Court are on issues not

only related to law, but to other issues of

social affairs, customary law, up to division

of the borders of a region.

A visitor in the ConstitutionalCourt’s Library visitors

was browsing around thecollection book.

Foto






Pancasila Education




Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD and Vice ChiefJustice of the ConstitutionalCourt Achmad Sodikireceived a visit of themembers of the U.S. LawLibrary of Congress.

Foto

With the support of complete literature

for constitutional court justices, no wonder

constitutional court justices have the

undoubted capability and competency when

deciding a case.

The Constitutional Court’s library which is

famous for its complete literature has made

the library which occupies three floors in

the Constitutional Court Building well-known,even abroad. Many institutions that have

libraries came to the Constitutional Court

for a “comparative study”. Even recently, a

member of the Law Library of the Congress

of the United States met the Chief Justice

of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD,

to request for a permission to cooperate

with them.

To support all the aforementioned functions,

the Centre for Research and Studies (Puslitka)of the Constitutional Court is supported by

two working units, namely the Centre for

Research and Library Unit.

Development of the Center forConstitutional Studies

As mentioned earlier, the Constitutional

Court has published the PKK (Center for

Constitutional Studies) edition of Jurnal

Konstitusi (Constitutional Journal) since 2008.

During these three years, 61 Centers for

Constitutional Studies of 61 Universities have

contributed by having their researches included

in the PKK edition of Jurnal Konstitusi.

From the beginning, the presence of the

Center for Constitutional Studies has been

aimed not only at “filling” the PKK edition

of Jurnal Konstitusi. For a long time, the

Secretariat-General and Registrar’s Office of

the Constitutional Court have been aware

that it is important to establish cooperation

with the campus community. Academicians

of high intellectual level are believed able

to strengthen the Constitutional Court’s

network in universities and in regions where








the universities are located. Circles of

academicians have also proven to be able

help the Constitutional Court to disseminate

constitutional awareness among the general

public. Using a communicative method, the

messages to be conveyed to the public by

the Constitutional Court can be more easily

digested, understood, and accepted.

Moreover, the position of the ConstitutionalCourt that exists only in the capital and nota

bene does not have any “branch” in the

region just like the other judicial institutions,

has made it difficult for the Constitutional

Court to promote its functions and authority.

The presence of Centers for Constitutional

Studies (PKK) in regions cab compensate

for the aforementioned “weaknesses” of the


With the awareness of the importance of

cooperation with academicians, since 2008,

the Constitutional Court has established

cooperation with universities. The cooperation

has been realized with the establishment of

Centers for Constitutional Studies (PKK). In

other words, the Centers for Constitutional

Studies in 61 universities spread throughout

Indonesia are the “Friends of the Court”

for the Constitutional Court. The “friendship”between the Centers for Constitutional Studies

and the Constitutional Court is continuing

until 2011.

In 2011, 2 (two) Centers for Constitutional

Studies have joined, namely the Center

for Constitutional Studies of the National

Education University of Bali and the Center

for Constitutional Studies of Narotama

University of Surabaya. Previously, 56 Centers

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court, Moh.

Mahfud MD opened theCoordination Meeting of the

Constitutional Court withthe Deans of the Faculties

of Law.






Pancasila Education




for Constitutional Studies had joined in the

publication of the Center for Constitutional

Studies edition of Jurnal Konstitusi, namely

among others, the Center for Constitutional

Studies of the Syiah Kuala University (since

2008), the Center for Constitutional Studies of

the State University of Jakarta (since 2009),

and the Center for Constitutional Studies of

the Padjadjaran University (since 2009).

Journal Publication

J u r n a l K o n s t i t u s i o f theConstitutional Court

In order to disseminate information, the

Constitutional Court publishes the Jurnal

Konstitusi of as a medium of information

for the public. Jurnal Konstitusi is aimed

at making the constitution down to earth

and making the values contained in the

constitution become one with the life of

the community (to enforce the constitution

as a living constitution).

Jurnal Konstitusi contains scientific papers

such as results of field research, analysis

of judicial review decisions, theoretical

studies, literature studies, as well as

critical-conceptual ideas which are objective,

systematic, analytical, and descriptive in

nature and which have national scope. Theparties that fill the Jurnal Konstitusi are the

experts, academicians, practitioners, students,

law enforcers, activists, up to journalists. In

fact, some legal experts such as former

Constitutional Court Justice Maruarar Siahaan

also contributed by sending his writings for

the Jurnal Konstitusi. In 2001, the writing of

Maruarar Siahaan entitled “Implementation of

Decision No. 27/PHPU.D-VII/2010 concerning

Disputes over the Results of General Election

of the Regional Head of Lamongan Regency”was published in the February 1, 2011

edition.

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

NUMBER OFPUBLICATION

Chart 14Publication of the Jurnal Konstitusi 2004-2011







Language Lab visitorsat 6th Floor of the

Constitutional CourtBuilding.

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/Ardli

Meanwhile, the issues raised in the Jurnal

Konstitusi are not only with about law and

constitution, but also about economic, social,

political and state administration issues.

Historically, Jurnal Konstitusi has been

published since the beginning of the

establishment of the Constitutional, namely

in 2004. Thus, until 2011, Jurnal Konstitusi

has been published for 8 (eight) years or in

eight volumes. However, in the early days,

Jurnal Konstitusi was not regularly published

six times a year. Only in recent years Jurnal

Konstitusi has been published six times a

year. A total of 32 issues of Jurnal Konstitusi

have been published until 2011.

While for the 2011, the Jurnal Konstitusi

could be published in six editions. The

Six of them, namely, Volume 8 Number 1,

published in February 2011, volume 8 number

2, published in April 2011, volume 8 number

3, published in June 2011, volume 8 number

4 published in August 2011, volume 8 number

5, published in October 2011, and volume 8

No. 6, published in December 2011.

Each Jurnal Konstitusi published has a

different theme. The following table presents

Jurnal Konstitusi themes throughout 2011.





Pancasila Education




Table 18Themes of Jurnal Konstitusi in 2011

1. 8 1 February Implementa on of the Decisions on theGeneral Elec on of the Head of Regionand Judicial Review of the GeneralElec on Law

2. 8 2 April Implica ons of the Cons tu onal Court’sDecisions on the General Elec on Systemand Democracy

3. 8 3 June Eco log y of t he Con sti tut ion andCons tu onal Democracy

4. 8 4 August Substan ve Jus ce and Democracy

5. 8 5 October Cons tu on and Human Rights

6. 8 6 December Economic Cons tu on

The quality of writing, consistency ofpublication of the Jurnal Konstitusi, layout

quality, and the institutional aspect of the

publication of Jurnal Konstitusi have been

accredited by the Indonesian Institute of

Sciences (LIPI) in 2011, namely in April

2011. Accreditation for the Jurnal Konstitusi

from LIPI is recorded under number 329/

Akred-LIPI/P2MBI/04/2011.

With the accreditation by LIPI, Jurnal

Konstitusi gets good quality ratings. Withthat accreditation also, the editorial staff of

Jurnal Konstitusi make continuous efforts to

improve the quality of Jurnal Konstitusi .

Cen te r fo r Cons t i t u t i ona lStudies (PKK) edition of Jurnal

Konstitusi

In addition to the Jurnal Konstitusi published

by the Constitutional Court, there is also theCenter for Constitutional Studies (PKK) edition

of Jurnal Konstitusi (PKK Journal) in Indonesia.This PKK Journal has been published since

2008. Until now, the PKK Journal has been

published twice each year, namely every

June and November to be exact.

The PKK Journal has been established as

a forum for development of constitutional

thoughts and ideas as well as development

of national laws. Jurnal Konstitusi emerges

with its function to publish thoughts and

at once become the forum for constructiveand scientific public discussions.

As described earlier, PKK Journal is a per-

semester media published by the Center for

Constitutional Studies of each university in

collaboration with the Secretariat General and


Court.

In 2011, 41 Centers for Constitutional

Studies have established cooperation withthe Constitutional Court to publish Jurnal

No. Volume Issue No. Month of Issue Theme







Konstitusi. However, not every Center for

Constitutional Studies has published Jurnal

Konstitusi two times a year. For Volume IV

No. 1 published in June, only 40 Centers

for Constitutional Studies participated in

publishing PKK Journal. As for the Volume

IV No.2 published in November, 29 Centers

for Constitutional Studies were listed to

have contributed in the publication of PKK

Journal.

Centers for Constitutional Studies which have

contributed to the publication of the PKK

Journal in 2011 are, among others, the

Center for Constitutional Studies (Pusako) of

the Faculty of Law of Andalas University,

the Constitutional Study Board of the Faculty

of Law of Riau University, P3KHAM LPPM of

the Faculty of Law of the Sebelas Maret

State University, the Center for ConstitutionalStudies of the Faculty of Law of Brawijaya

University, and the Center for Constitutional

Studies of Udayana University.

Similar to scientific journals, PKK Journal

has a theme in every issue. For 2011,

two themes have been put forward, namely

“Judicial Review of Law and Dispute over

Authority of State Institutions” and “Regional

Head General Election”.

Both the aforementioned journals, namely

Jurnal Konstitusi and PKK Journal, are

distributed free of charge to the stakeholders

and the general public.

Modern Library

Library becomes an important element for

the Constitutional Court to perform its

function as a judicial institution with final

FormerConstitutional Court

Justice MaruararSiahaan providedmaterials at FGD

entitled “Structured,Systematic, and

Massive Violations”.

Public Relations of the Constitutional

Court]





Pancasila Education




Visitors of the ConstitutionalCourt’s Library are utilizingcomfortable reading roomfacilities.

Foto


decisions. To produce such final decisions,

the constitutional court justices sometimes

require reference sources. Reference sources

required the justices can be obtained,

among other things, at the Library of the


No wonder if the Constitutional Court’s

Library is mentioned as the support unit for

constitutional court justices, experts, as wellas researchers at the Constitutional Court.

However, in the organizational structure,

the Constitutional Court’s Library is under

the Center for Research and Study of the

Secretariat General of the Constitutional

Court.

Administratively, the Constitutional Court’s

Library was established in August 2004 along

with the Decision of the Secretary General

of the Constitutional Court NO. 357/Kep/Set.MK/2004 concerning the Organization and

Operational Procedures of the Secretariat


Constitutional Court, but operationally the

Constitutional Court’s Library started to

operate in January 2005.

In the course of time and developments in

the body of the Constitutional Court, changes

and adjustments are being made to the

Organization and Operational Procedures of

the Secretariat General and the Registrar’sOffice of the Constitutional Court, and the

Constitutional Court’s Library will become

Library Division directly responsible to the

Head of the Center for Research and Study

(Kapuslitka) and it will functionally collaborate

with researchers and experts in supporting

the constitutional court justices.

Up to August 2007, the Constitutional Court’s

Library occupied a building that belongs to

the Ministry of Communication and Information(Depkominfo) at Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat

No.7 Central Jakarta, in a 8 x 6 meter room







on the 3rd floor, without partition between

the workspace and the reading room, provided

with racks of about 5,000 copies of books,

journals and print media periodicals.

In the new Constitutional Court building at

Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No.6 Central

Jakarta, the Constitutional Court’s Library

occupies 5th and 6th floors provided with

indoor and outdoor reading rooms whileenjoying the Constitutional Court’s Dome

which is also an additional reading room.

In addition to the two floors which are

dedicated to the public, there is also the

Constitutional Court’s Library located on the

16th floor. The Library on the 16th floor is

only for the constitutional court justices.

To support these functions, the Library of

the Constitutional Court of the Republic of

Indonesia is provided with various collectionsfrom various scientific disciplines. However,

the Constitutional Court’s Library has more

collections of literature on law and state

system, as well as relevant information such

as politics, state administration, history, and

biography.

In addition to supporting the duties of

constitutional court justices, the Constitutional

Court’s library also provides literature materials

which also meet the needs of many parties

such as students, academicians, experts,

researchers, and others who engage in the

field of law. For this reason, the Constitutional

Court’s Library provides more books related

to the constitution and laws.

Literature materials available in the

Constitutional Court’s library are not only

from publishers in the country, as we can

find books from foreign publishers. In fact,

over the years the Constitutional Court’s

library continues to increase the collections

of the literature materials both in Indonesian

and foreign language. Most books owned

by the Constitutional Court’s Library are in

Indonesian language followed by literature in

the English language (see table).

T e x

t b o o

k

D e c

i s i o n

J o u r n a

l / M a g a z i n e

A r t i c

l e

Chart 16

Types of Collection of the ConstitutionalCourt’s Library in 2011

96,61%

1,91% 0,01% 0,76%

Chart 15

Books Owned by the Constitutional Court’s

Library Based on Language

E n g

l i s h

I n d o n e s

i a n

G e r m a n

K o r e a n

51,6%

0,01% 0,02%

0,02%0,02%48,37%





Pancasila Education




The literature collections are available in

various forms of publications, such as various

kinds of books on constitutional law, state

administration, politics, social affairs. There

are also various reports, proceedings, minutes,

and decisions related to the activities and

functions of the Constitutional Court.

Chart 18

Internal visitors of the Constitutional Court’s Library in 2011

J a n u a

r i

F e b r u a

r i

M a r e

t

A p r i l

M e i

J u n i J u

l i

A g u s t u

s

S e p t e m

b e r

O k t o b

e r

N o v e m

b e r

D e s e m b e

r

In 2011, the literature collections in the

Constitutional Court’s Library have reached

a total of 7,971 book titles and 17,077

copies. The books are obtained from the

purchase, gifts from individuals, and gifts from

institutions. Institutions that give gifts that

add to the collection of literature materials

of the Constitutional Court’s Library are

the People’s Legislative Assembly/People’s

Consultative Assembly, Library of Congress,The Asia Foundation, the Supreme Court

and the Judicial Commission. In 2011, the

Constitutional Court’s Library also added 167

titles of electronic book (e-book) collections

which can be opened via the website of the

Constitutional Court at the library window.

For the Journal of Law, the Constitutional

Court’s Library has periodicals on constitutional

law from various government or private

agencies. Online law journals available are

Chart 17

Books Owned by the ConstitutionalCourt’s Library based on Classification

I l m u

H u k u m

d a n

S o s

i a l

G e o g r a f

& S

e j a r a

h

F i l s a

f a t d a n

P s

i k o

l o g

i

B a

h a s a - K a m u s

A g a m a

S e n

i d a n

O l a h r a g a

K e s u s a s

t e r a a n

K a r y a U m u m

I l m u

T e r a p a n

70,44%

6,62%1,97% 1,62% 4,39%

0,3% 1,77%7,07% 4,85%







Westlaw and Heinonline. As for actual

information or publications of mass media,

the Constitutional Court’s Library provides

various newspapers and magazines on aregular basis, namely among others, Republika,

The Jakarta Post, Media Indonesia, Kompas,

Indo Pos, Seputar Indonesia, Times, Newsweek,

Tempo, Gatra, Reader’s Digest, National

Geographic, etc.

In addition to printed literature that can be

borrowed by the visitors of the Constitutional

Court’s library, facilities such as cable or

wireless internet networks are also available.

With the existence of internet facilities, visitors

Chart 19External visitors of the Constitutional Court’s Library in 2011

J a n u

a r i

F e b r u

a r i M a

r e t A p r i l

M e i

J u n i J u

l i

A g u s t u s

S e p t e

m b e r

O k t o b

e r

N o v e

m b e r

D e s e

m b e r

can enjoy the library room which is quite

representative.

In addition, the Constitutional Court’s Libraryhas a dome serving the function of an

outdoor reading room. In that dome, visitors

to the Constitutional Court’s Library can read

books while enjoying the beautiful and tidily-

organized view. The dome is provided with a

circular reading room and ornamental plants

as well as plants for sunlight protection.

In 2011, the number of library visitors to the

Constitutional Court’s Library up to December

reached 11,412 people. The recorded internal





Pancasila Education




Chart 20Book Borrowers of the Constitutional Court’s Library

4555

133

126

118

13377

64

82

124

105

92

visitors to the Constitutional Court up to

December were 6,145 people. Meanwhile, the

recorded external visitors to the Constitutional

Court up to the same month were 3,799

people. Recorded book borrowers throughout

2011 up to December were 1,468 people.

The Constitutional Court’s Library also

makes continuous efforts to maintain book

collections in the Constitutional Court’s Library.Maintenance of the books is intended for

the book collections of the Constitutional

Court’s Library to survive for decades and

still be readable. Maintenance efforts are

performed, among others, by covering every

book collection of the Constitutional Court’s

Library. In addition, fumigation or placement

book-preserving gases and pest prevention

are also conducted in July and October.

Development of information technology and

infrastructure are, among others, directed

towards the aspects of the system (software)

by adding several features to Online Library

products. Through the development of

information technology and infrastructure

various online services, such as online catalog,

can also be provided.

The development is also directed towardsthe security aspects of the collections and

library users. The collections of library books

continue to grow and become sources of

intellectual property that should be guarded

and maintained. Also developed are CCTV,

computers, trial research set, and library in

the Room of Consultative Meeting of Justices

(RPH) at the 16th floor of the Constitutional

Court’s Building.







In addition, in 2011 the Constitutional Court’s

library added library security tools put on

the 16th floor. The addition is intended not

only to secure the collections but also to

facilitate the control of collections spreading

over 3 floors, namely 5th, 6th, and 16th

floors. Safety devices have been added in

the form of smart shelf and security chip

for the collection of books that have RIFD

(Radio Frequency Identification) technology.

Constitutional Court’s library can also be

accessed online by opening the portal http://

portal.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/simpus/. In

the portal, visitors can view online catalogs

and abstracts of the collected books of

the Constitutional Court’s Library. Moreover,

visitors can also view information on what

number of shelf the book is placed. It is

all intended to facilitate visitors of the

Constitutional Court’s Library.

Legal Information Center

Legal Information Center (PIH) is a form

of service to the community to obtain

their constitutional rights in obtaining

technology-based legal information through

the website.

This system was established in 2007 and

has been accessible to the entire community

as a window for information on legal

products in Indonesia. Until now the portal

located at http://portal.mahkamahkonstitusi.

go.id/eLaw/ has been visited by 491,028

visitors. The portal is intended to meet

every citizen’s constitutional right to obtain

legal information in order to increase public

legal awareness.

Legal product information in the PIH

portal includes the legal products of State

Institutions, State Ministries, Department

onstitutional Court’sOnline Library

Website.





Pancasila Education




Ministries, Non-Department Government

Agencies, Local Governments, and state-

owned enterprises/regional government-owned

enterprises. The aforementioned legal products

are in form of, among others, regulations,

decisions, stipulations, court decisions, and

policy rules.

The contents of PIH Portal have developed

from year to year. In previous years, PIHportal development included surveys on laws

and regulations, identification and classification

of laws and regulations, as well as facilities

for uploading the laws and regulations within

the purview of state institutions, the central

government, local government and state-

owned enterprises/regional government-owned

enterprises independently, while this year,

this PIH portal has not been developed

much further.

In 2011, only contents have been added

to Online PIH. Meanwhile, no development

has been made to the appearance of the

website and the features contained in the

PIH portal.

Meanwhile, the contents of the PIH portal this

year have been added only with increased

number of regulations. Regulations added are

Laws, Government Regulations, PresidentialRegulations, Ministerial Regulations, and

Regional Regulations.

Activities in the development of PIH consist

of several stages. First, gathering the

materials to be processed, especially the

legal regulations submitted by the State

Secretariat to maintain validity. This activity

of collecting regulations is divided into two

categories, namely the central regulations

and regional regulations.

Chart 21Regulations uploaded in PIH in 2011

98

6308

313

8043







Activities of collecting central regulations

(Laws, Government Regulations, Presidential

Regulations, etc.) are performed by the

Constitutional Court’s staff. Meanwhile, the

collecting of regional regulations is conducted

with 39 law faculties in universities in

cooperation with the Constitutional Court.

Each month, the law faculties in cooperation

with the Constitutional Court submit 20 files

of local regulations to be uploaded by the

IT staff of the Constitutional Court.

Subsequently, the activities carried out would

be moving (scanning) or changing the format

of legal regulations available that was in

printed format into PDF file format. The third

is editing, namely improving the appearance of

legal regulations that have been scanned as

PDF files into Word format to be tidier and

to be smaller in size for storage capacity. The

fourth is publishing (uploading), entering the

edited legal regulations into the PIH system

so that they can be seen and downloaded

by people who need them.

Contributors who uploaded these pages are

not only from the Constitutional Court, but

also from the Supreme Court, Ministry of

Justice and Human Rights (KemenkumHAM),

the Association of Teachers of Procedural

Law of the Constitutional Court (APHAMK),

and the Centers for Constitutional Studies(PKK).

In addition to uploading documents from

contributors, Legal Information Center also

invites the general public and organizations,

both public and private, to submit legal

documents they possess to be uploaded in

the PIH website. The uploading of the legal

documents is intended for the community

to have equal opportunity to access these

documents for free. These documents canbe mailed to the Center for research and

A visitor was accessingwebsite of PIH Portal in the

Constitutional Court’s Library.






Pancasila Education




study of the Constitutional Court at Jalan

Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6 Jakarta, JKT

10024 or sent in soft copy via email to:

[email protected].

The public can view and download the

documents uploaded by PIH of the

Constitutional Court at internet network

address http://portalmahkamahkonstitusi.

go.id/eLaw/

Seminars , Discussions, andWorkshops (Decision ExaminationTeam)

The Secretariat General of the Constitutional

Court is not only conducting research and

publishing journals each year. Through the

Center for Research and Study of the

Constitutional Court, the Secretariat General

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Courtbecame a speakerin the Symposiumon Law and Justiceorganized by UI.

Foto

organizes studies in the form of seminars,

discussions, workshops, and Focus Group

Discussions (FDG).

Up to the end of 2011 3 (three) seminars on

the Secretariat General of the Constitutional

Court have been organized. The first seminar

was held in February 2011 in Brawijaya

University Malang, followed by the second

seminar held in Andalas University on April14 up to 17, 2011. The last seminar was

held in Yogyakarta on September 30 up

to October 1, 2011.

Such seminar activities were held not only

in Jakarta, but also in big cities in the

regions which also had a turn in the

seminar. By embracing the law faculties

of universities in the regions the seminars

can be held well.








With national seminars organized by the


Court, solutions to legal and constitutional

issues relating to state administration

and development of ideas concerning the

constitution can be found. The results

of these seminars can also be used in

addressing constitutional issues.

In addition to seminars, workshops alsobecame the agenda of the Center for

Research and Study of the Constitutional

Court in 2011. It is recorded that the

Center for Research and Study of the

Constitutional Court organized three seminars

and workshop. The first was the seminar and

workshop on Pancasila and the Constitution

in Surabaya on October 25-28, 2011. The

second was the seminar and workshop on

Pancasila and the Constitution in Surakarta

on October 27-31, 2011. The third was theseminar and workshop on Pancasila and

the Constitution in Semarang on November

27-30, 2011.

Other activities handled by Center for


Court in 2011 were the Constitution Week

(Pekan Konstitusi) at the Andalas University

of Padang and Pancasila Workshop in

Yogyakarta. Each was held on April 24 –

30, 2011 and May 29 - June 2, 2011.

The regular activity organized each year

by Center for Research and Study of

the Constitutional Court is Focus Group

Discussion (FGD). FDG activity is often

attended by constitutional court justices,

constitutional court justice staff, and

researchers from the Center for Research

and Study of the Constitutional Court. FGDs

are conducted with the expectation that

the up-to-date themes that require in-depth

and comprehensive study can be discussed

in more depth.

Participants who have attended FGDs will

have a level of understanding of the

discourse about contemporary issues in law

and constitution. In addition, by following the

FGDs, participants can easily and smoothly

review any most recent constitutional law

discourse.

Until December 2011, the Center for


Court had held 14 FGDs which were intended

for researchers, registrars, and Constitutional

Court Justice staff of the Constitutional

Court. Meanwhile, 2 (two) FGDs were held

for constitutional court justices.

Former Constitutional Court Justice Maruarar

Siahaan attended one occasion of FGD

implementation. Maruarar delivered the

material entitled “Structured, Systematic,

and Massive Violations with the Weight of

Evidence Based on the Beyond Reasonable

Doubt Standard in the General Election of

the Regional Head”. The FGD presenting

Maruarar at that time was attended by

researchers from the Center for Research

and Study of the Constitutional Court.

Implementation of the aforementioned

seminars and focus group discussions

each year is intended as an effort of the


Court to obtain thoughts and ideas in a

broader context in relation to the exercise

of the Authority of the Constitutional Court

and constitutional law. By possessing the

thoughts and ideas in a broader context,

the understanding the state system will not

only be limited to academicians, but it will

extend to the general public.




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

Education of Pancasila, Constitution, and

Procedural Law on the Constitutional Court

The StudentsParticipating inthe Moot Court

Competition (2/11)demonstrated the

hearing process atthe Constitutional

Court.

Foto

The 1945 Constitution is the result

of the collective agreement that has

become the supreme law of our

country. As the supreme law, all forms of

legislations and regulations must be based

on the constitution as their source. Moreover,

the Constitution also contains the ideals,

the foundations, up to the principles of

state administration. Since the contents of

the constitution become the foundation forthe implementation of state administration,

then all state institutions as well as all

segments of the society are expected to

understand and to apply any norm in the

1945 Constitution in the living as a nation

and a state.

The 1945 Constitution shall be implemented

by every state institution and all segments

of the society by exercising their rights and

performing their obligations in accordancewith the norms provided for in the 1945

Constitution. This is because in essence, the

Constitution binds every citizen. Therefore, the

exercise or performance of the appropriate

rights and obligations is intended to achieve

our ideals as stated in the fourth paragraph

of the preamble to the 1945 Constitution. To

enable every institution and every citizen to

live the life as a nation and a state based

on the 1945 Constitution, it is necessary to

realize a culture of constitutional awareness.To develop the culture of constitutional

awareness, it is necessary to understand

the basic values and norms that become

the substance of the constitution. That

understanding is the basis for the people

to be able to always make the constitution

as the reference in living as a society,

nation and state.

If the people have understood the basic

norms of the constitution and implementit in living as a nation and a state, then








they surely know and are able to defend

their constitutional rights guaranteed in the

1945 Constitution. In addition, the people

can participate fully in the implementation

of the 1945 Constitution either through the

implementation of the rights and obligations

as citizens, participation in the administration

of state and government, or by exercising

control of the state administration and

the operation of the government. Thatcondition will automatically prevent the

occurrence of deviations from or abuse of

the constitution.

Indonesia adheres not only to the constitution

but also to Pancasila as the state

philosophy, performs the principles of

Pancasila democracy which is implied in line

with the implementation of the constitution.

This is because the principle of Pancasila

democracy is constitutional democracy withpeople’s sovereignty mechanism in the

administration of state and governance

based on the constitution, which is the

1945 Constitution. Pancasila democracy is

bound by the 1945 Constitution and must

be implemented in accordance with the 1945

Constitution as the constitution.

As a judicial institution serving the function

of guarding the constitution and as the

sole interpreter of the Constitution, the

Constitutional Court has the responsibility

to disseminate the culture of constitutional

awareness to the general public and to apply

the principles of the Pancasila democracy

in the implementation of its authority. For

that reason, the Constitutional Court has

had the initiative to organize some activities

related to the dissemination of the culture of

constitutional awareness and the introduction

of procedural law on the Constitutional

Court as well as revitalization the values of

Pancasila as the ideals of the law. Several

activities throughout 2011 related to the

aforementioned matters were, among others,

the implementation of the National Workshop

on Pancasila (May 2-3, 2011), colloquium,

the 2011 Constitution Week, media publishing

of the Constitutional Court, the introduction

of the procedural law of the Constitutional

Court and other events.

National Workshop on Pancasila

Pancasila is the monumental formulation of

the state foundation formed by our founding

fathers. Along the journey of the nation of

Indonesia, Pancasila has proved to play an

important role in binding and uniting the

values of nationalism and diversity of the

Indonesian people. Moreover, Pancasila which

is also described in the Preamble to the

1945 Constitution is the legal ideal of the

Indonesian nation.

Legal ideals of Pancasila must become the

reference for all laws and regulations. As

the legal ideal, not only that Pancasila

provides guidance and directions for laws

and their enforcement, but it also determines

the shape of the laws and how to execute

the laws. However, these legal ideals are

in fact marginalized in the formulation and

enforcement of laws. This has caused the

people of Indonesia to seem like losing their

soul and to be easily penetrated by interests

that are contradictory to the legal ideals.

For this reason, the idea to revitalize Pancasila

as the legal ideal has emerged. This idea

shall be implemented for the sole purpose

of recovering the position as the legal ideal,

starting from the formulation, implementation

up to enforcement of laws. The implementation

of the revitalization of the values of Pancasila




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

is important primarily to make Pancasilaa paradigm in the implementing the law

and ensuring that the values of Pancasila

continue to reside in the practice of law.

This is solely to internalize basic values of

Pancasila as the signs of development of

national laws.

In connection with these objectives, the

Constitutional Court as the implementer of

judicial authority and a part of law enforcers

has put it efforts to revitalize the values

of Pancasila both in the implementation

of its authority and in participating to

take responsibility for its implementation.

For this reason, on May 2-3, 2011, the

Constitutional Court in cooperation with

Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, held

a National Workshop on Pancasila with

the theme ‘Implementation of the values

of Pancasila in upholding the Constitution’.

The event took place at the Graha Sabha

Pramana of UGM which would be attended

by some experts as resource persons,including legal practitioners, academicians,

community leaders, youth, NGOs, Community

Organizations, political organizations, religious

leaders, mass media and others. Some

resource persons who presented materials

sere, among others, the Chief Justice of

the Constitutional Court Moh. Mahfud MD,


Achmad Sodiki, Constitutional Court Justice

Harjono and Constitutional Court Justice M.

Akil Mochtar, Cultural Observer Franz MagnisSuseno, Professor of State Administration

System of Andalas University Saldi Isra,

and others.

On the same occasion, the Constitutional

Court (MK) and Gadjah Mada University signed

a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This

Memorandum of Understanding was motivated

by the goal of building the enculturation

of Pancasila and the Constitution through

education, training, and socialization of the

Foto

The Secretary General ofthe Constitutional CourtJanedjri M. Gaffar (left) andthe Rector of Gadjah MadaUniversity Ir. Sudjarwadi,M.Eng., Ph.D. (right) weresigning a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) onenculturation of Pancasilaand the Constitution inthe presence of the ChiefJustice of the Constitutional

Court, Moh Mahfud MD,Monday (2/5), at Graha SabhaPramana Building, UGM,

Yogyakarta.








constitution and reinforcing Pancasila as the

state ideology and the 1945 Constitution as

the constitutional foundation of the unitary

state of the Republic of Indonesia.

The MoU was signed shortly after the opening

of the National Seminar on “Implementation

of the values of Pancasila in Upholding the

Constitutionality of Indonesia”.

The MoU was signed by the Secretary

General of the Constitutional Court Janedjri

M. Gaffar and the Rector of Gadjah Mada

University Sudjarwadi in the presence of the

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, the

constitutional court justices, Vice Chairman of

the Judicial Commission, the representative

the Governor of the Special Region of

Yogyakarta, officials, lecturers, and students

of Gadjah Mada University.

Center for the Documentation ofthe History of the Constitutionand the Constitutional Court

The Constitution is the supreme legal

document that must be implemented within

the national legal system and the life as a

nation and a state. The Constitution shall

become collective guidance in solving and

facing the problems of the nation. Therefore,

it is important to document all historical

processes occurring in the development

of the Constitution in Indonesia from the

Independence of Indonesia up to the present

in a permanent documentation in text, audio,

photo, and video formats.

The existence of this documentation of the

history of the constitution will make the

Indonesia nation know and understand the

Historians’ meeting todiscuss the substance

of the Center for theDocumentation of the History

of the Constitution and theConstitutional Court (19/5)in the Constitutional Court

Building.





Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

background of developments of the constitution

that occurred in this country. This will become

the lesson and consideration for the future

generation to know and to understand the

facts of the historical development of the

Indonesian Constitution.

In line with the important existence of

historical documentation on the formation and

development of the constitution and historyof the establishment of the Constitutional

Court in Indonesia which has authority as

the guardian of the constitution, in 2011 the

Constitutional Court planned to build a model

of the documentation that would describe

the history of the establishment of the

Constitutional Court. The establishment of the

Center for the Documentation of the History

of the Constitution and the Constitutional

Court is intended to promote the role of

archives and historical documents as importantparts of the process of national life, in order

to reinforce the spirit of national unity. In

addition, the Center for the Documentation

of the History of the Constitution and the

Constitutional Court has the objective to foster

the love of the homeland, as well as to

reinforce historical archives and documents as

the node unifying the nation as well as to

give an important contribution in documenting

the history of the development of the state

constitution, not only for Indonesia but for

the world. The Center for the Documentationof the History of the Constitution and the

Constitutional Court is also intended to

improve understanding and knowledge about

the history of the birth of the constitution

and its development, knowledge of the

Constitutional Court, including information

about various aspects of the Constitutional

Court as one of the executor of judicial

power with some areas of authority granted

under the 1945 Constitution. The drafting

of the history of the Constitution andthe Constitutional Court, included two (2)

phases of activities carried out from March




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

Constitutional Court has not been largely

known by the general public. Yet since the

Constitutional Court was officially established

on August 13, 2003 up to the present,

intense dissemination efforts have been

undertaken, including through activities of talk

shows, seminars, book reviews, mass media

publications and the Constitutional Court

website, etc. On the other hand, gait of the

Constitutional Court as a judicial institutionof state administration has had an impact

on the development of science, particularly

legal science in Indonesia.

However, these developments have not been

followed by an increased understanding of

the academicians, especially students on a

variety of constitutional issues and issues of

constitutionality of legal norms in Indonesia.

In connection with the fact, the Constitutional

Court’s dissemination efforts to all levels ofsociety need to be carried out continuously,

especially in the academic world as one of

the pillars of science. Along with that, in

order to improve the students and academic

community’s understanding of the existence of

the Court and constitutional issues, the Court

has made the initiative to hold a contest of

Constitutional Debate among Higher Education

Students throughout Indonesia 2011. The

Constitutional Court divided the Constitutional

Debates into two levels, namely the national

and regional levels. The regional level selection

was the process to follow the Constitution

debate at the national level.

In 2011, the Constitutional Debate was

followed by 96 universities divided into six

regional divisions. The six regional divisions

were Regional Division I covering the regions

of Sumatra (consisting of 16 teams); Regional

Division II covering the regions of DKI Jakarta,

West Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan

(consisting of 16 teams); Regional Division III

covering the regions of West Java and Banten

(consisting of 16 team); Regional Division IV

covering the regions of Central Java and

DI Yogyakarta (consisting of 16 teams);

Regional Division V covering the regions of

East Java, Bali, NTT, NTB (consisting of 16

teams); and Regional Division VI covering the

regions of Sulawesi, Maluku, North Maluku,

Papua (consisting of 16 teams). Meanwhile,the Constitutional Debate at the national

level was followed by 24 teams that had

won at the regional level.

With the evaluation by 32 judges who

were experts of state administration as well

as lecturers from various universities, the

Constitutional Debate 2011 was expected

to encourage the improvement of college

students’ ability in explaining the constitutional

text (articles of the 1945 Constitution) withthe development of administrative practices

following the amendment to the 1945

constitution as well as to develop the

culture of different opinions in a constructive

way in understanding the implementation of

the amendment to the 1945 Constitution.

The topics discussed were adapted to the

constitutional issues that became the hot

issues among the people, namely among

other things, the expansion of the Authority

of the Constitutional Court in the Settlement

of Disputes over General Election of the

Regional Head, Death Penalty for Corruptors,

Inquiry Rights in the Presidential System,

Election of Governor of Yogyakarta, Authority

of the Constitutional Court in Deciding

upon Constitutional Questions, Authority of

the Constitutional Court in Deciding upon

Constitutional Complaints. In the end, the

2011 Constitutional Debate which was held

during the period of May 3 – July 8,

2011 for selection at the regional level







and July 25 – 27, 2011 for the final level,

recorded Gadjah Mada University (UGM) as

the First Winner of the 2011 Constitutional

Debate, followed by Andalas University as

the runner up.

Quiz for Sight-Disabled Students

The amendment to the 1945 Constitution

as part of reforms demands conducted ina series consisting of four stages in the

sessions of the People’s Consultative Assembly,

not only increased the number of chapters,

articles, and paragraphs, but has also added

and improved the constitutional system of

Indonesia. This resulted from the constitutional

reform, as the 1945 Constitution has been

improved so it has become more modern and

democratic due to the inclusion of various

new legal and constitutional thoughts into

the formulation of the constitution.

The amendment to the 1945 Constitution

contains more complete human rights

than before the amendment to the 1945

Constitution. Constitutional rights are inherent

in every citizen, including sight disabled

people. Some of these constitutional rights

are, among others, that every person has

the right to develop themselves through the

fulfillment of basic needs, and is entitled to

obtain education and benefit from scienceand technology, arts and culture. In relation

to the constitutional rights of sight-disabled

citizens, the Constitutional Court has published

the 1945 Constitution books in Braille that

have been distributed to sight-disabled

citizens. With the 1945 Constitution in made

Braille format, sight-disabled people are

expected to be able to open the access

to understanding the constitution of their

country and then become more active in

participating in development in accordancewith their potentials, jobs and activities.

Vice Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court (MK)

Achmad Sodiki and theSecretary General of the

Constitutional Court JanedjriM. Gaffar had their photo

taken together with theWinners of Quiz Competition

“Understanding the 1945Constitution for Sight-

Disabled Students of JuniorHigh School in Indonesia

Year 2011”. The 1st winnerwas SLB A Perwari Kuningan

(Jeri Sopiandi & YantiRusyanti), the 2nd Winner

was State SLB A I Pemalang(Reni Riyan & Clinton) andthe 3rd Winner was SLB A

Payakumbuh (Miftahul NoviAnshary & Andika Firnanda),

Sunday (29/5) in the Lobbyof the Plenary Courtroom

of the Constitutional CourtBuilding.

Public Relations of the ConstittionalCourt/ Prana Patrayoga




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

In order to share the responsibility for

disseminating the understanding of the 1945

Constitution among sight-disabled people, the

Constitutional Court held a competition activity

of understanding the 1945 Constitution among

sight-disabled students of SMPLB. These

activities would be implemented in the form of

Quiz in Understanding the 1945 Constitution

of the State of the Republic of Indonesia for

sight-disabled students of junior high schools.This activity was expected to increase the

understanding among sight-disabled students

particularly of junior high school level (SMPLB

A) of the 1945 Constitution as well as to

encourage the development of awareness and

adherence of sight-disabled students to the

1945 Constitution. The activities were carried

out from May 27 to 29, 2011, attended by

sight-disabled students of the Extraordinary

Junior High Schools (junior high school level)

in Indonesia which were divided into 36teams representing their respective schools

from 19 provinces. The number of participants

in 2011 increased from that in 2010, which

was attended by 27 teams. The question

materials of the Quiz of “Understanding the

1945 Constitution for sight-disabled Students

of Junior High Schools in Indonesia” were

about the articles of the 1945 Constitution,

as well as the understanding of such articles.

Previously, all participants had been equipped

with the 1945 Constitution books in Braille

published by the Constitutional Court. In

2011, the First Winner of the Quiz for

Blind Students was SLB A Perwari Kuningan

followed by State SLB A I Pemalang as the

Second Winner and SLB A Payakumbuh as

the Third Winner.

Paper on the Constitutional Court

The existence of the Constitutional Court (MK)as one of the executors of judicial power is

a new state institution in the Indonesian state

system, which has a parallel position with the

Supreme Court (MA). The establishment of the

Constitutional Court is intended to provide

legal way to resolve matters closely related

to the state administration, state system, and

political life. Therefore, a conflict related to

the aforementioned two issues will not evolve

into a state-political conflict and anarchy

without the any established, transparent andaccountable settlement method, but which

are managed in an objective and rational

manner as legal disputes that are resolved

legally.

Since its establishment in 2003, the

Constitutional Court has played an enormous

role in the state system in Indonesia. The

next role of the Constitutional Court was

to guard the reform process in Indonesia

which also affects the existing social andpolitical order. In connection with such facts,

it is deemed necessary to put in efforts to

conduct reviews and dissemination to all levels

of society in a continuous and sustainable

manner. Along with that, in order to improve

the academic study and public understanding

of the presence of the Constitutional Court,

the Paper Writing Contest was organized.

The Paper Writing Contest of the Constitutional

Court was held with the objectives to improve

the public understanding on the existence

of the Constitutional Court as a new state

institution in the state system of Indonesia

and as one of the executors of judicial

power in Indonesia and also to encourage

the development of critical thinking of the

public in understanding the presence of the

Constitutional Court. Moreover, this activity

was also expected to stimulate culture of

writing among the community in enhancing

the appreciation and understanding of the





Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

Until now, the Constitutional Court can

carry out its constitutional duties in an

uninterrupted and proper manner, being

inseparable from the support and participation

of all parties. One is the role of the mass

media in publicizing the institution of the

Constitutional Court, the decisions of the

Constitutional Court, and the activities of

the Constitutional Court. Within that scope,

the Constitutional Court has endeavored toappreciate the work of journalistic photo

resulting in the publication of the activities

of the Constitutional Court in the media

through the Constitutional Court’s Journalistic

Photo Contest 2011. This activity was also

conducted in order to motivate journalists

to provide the best work in their respective

fields. Participants of the Constitutional

Court’s Journalistic Photo Contest 2011 were

photographers whose pictures had appeared

in the print media (newspapers or magazines).The photo objects were the Constitutional

Court and other objects relating to the

Constitutional Court or the authority of the


Constitution Exhibition

Photos often become silent witnesses of the

track records in the history of a person,

an institution, or a place. This is oftenexpressed as the needs for photo and video

documentation is one of the most important

facilities in the dissemination of information.

In this connection, the Constitutional Court

as a new institution tried to introduce itself

to the community, including by organizing

a photo exhibition on “The History of

the Constitutional Court as a Clean and

Transparent Judicial Institution”.

Through the photo exhibition held from June27 up to July 2, 2011, the Constitutional

Court sought to disseminate the history of the

Constitutional Court and the Constitution in

the community through photo documentation.

Moreover, this activity was also expected

to provide complete and comprehensive

information to the public about the history

of the Constitutional Court as a clean and

transparent judicial institution through the

photos.

Constitution Media Award

Mass media and democracy are inseparable.

Each has a long history and both have a

continuous relationship with one another.

The mass media serves as a controller and

supervisor of the course of democracy and

government administration system. The mass

media is essential in a democracy because

it is expected to bridge between government

and society and to improve the political

aspirations of the community.

As the guardian of democracy, the

Constitutional Court prioritizes transparency

and accountability. Transparency to the public

is done by the Constitutional Court through

the service to the public, especially for

justice seekers. Moreover, the Constitutional

Court has established good relationship and

cooperation with various parties, especiallythe mass media as one of the pillars of

democracy.

To give an appreciation of the mass media’s

attention and awareness in the field of

state system and constitutional awareness in

Indonesia, the Constitutional Court expressed

its appreciation through the Constitution Media

Award 2011. This activity was also intended

to motivate the citizens of Indonesia to

further increase dedication to constitutionalawareness in the field of broadcasting and







information dissemination through the mass

media. In 2011, the Constitutional Court

divided the parties into two categories to get

the Constitution Award, namely the daily print

public media and television electronic media.

The winners of the 2011 Constitution Media

Award for Print Media category were Kompas,

Seputar Indonesia and Media Indonesia.

Constitution Award for CivicsTeachers

Teachers play an important role as agents

of change in spreading the culture of

constitutional awareness to their students.

The large number of students who become

the potential factor for building a culture of

constitutional awareness. Moreover, students

are expected to become future leaders

and future generations as well as to have

constitutional awareness. In the endeavorto pay attention to and to support Civics

The recipients of theConstitution Award for CivicsTeachers at the National level2011 for High School Level at

Putri Duyung Cottage.

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/ Prana Patrayoga

(PKn) teachers who have a strategic role

in disseminating information about the

Constitutional Court and the culture of

constitutional awareness among students, the

Constitutional Court considered it important

to organize the activities of constitutional

awareness education and the presentation of

the Constitution Award to Civics teachers.

Based on such thought, the Constitutional

Court in cooperation with the Ministry of

National Education (Kemendiknas) and the

Ministry of Religious Affairs (Kemenag) would

organize activities of the Education of

Constitutional Awareness and the Presentation

of “Constitutional Award” for Civics Teachers

at the National Level. It was intended to

encourage the improvement of the spirit and

motivation of civics teachers in performing

their duties to develop the intellectual life of

the nation, to encourage the development ofthe culture of constitutional awareness among




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

Civics teachers and students, to encourage

the development of participation of civics

teachers in an objective and constructive

manner in the performance of duties and

authority of the Constitutional Court and

the duties of the government, as a form of

attention and respect of the Constitutional

Court, the Ministry of National Education

and the Ministry of Religious Affairs for the

dedication of Civics teachers.

The recipients of the 2011Constitution

Award for National Civics Teachers with

achievements for high school level were Barjo

Nugroho (SMAN I Purwantoro), Lusia Ernie

Fernandez (SMAN 3 Kupang), and Aminah

(SMAN I Padang). Meanwhile, the recipients

of the Constitution Award for National Civics

Teachers with achievements for junior high

school level were Eko Winarno (SMP UPTD

7 Tegal), Virene Irida Pramudyaningrum (SMPStella Matutina) and Ira Kristina (MTsN I

Malang). Subsequently, the recipients of

the Constitution Award for National Civics

Teachers with achievements for elementary

level were Sucandi (SDN Kebonsari 01), Lilik

Fathku Diniyah (MIN Al Amin Magelang), and

Fauziah (Min Sei Agul Medan).

Moot Court

Pursuant to Article 24C of the ThirdAmendment to the 1945 Constitution which

was stipulated on November 9, 2001, the

Constitutional Court is one of the executors

of judicial power in the state system of

Indonesia. It is also regulated in the 1945

Constitution, whereby the Constitutional Court

has four areas of authority, namely to hear

at the first and final level whose decision

shall be final, in conducting judicial review

of laws under the 1945 Constitution, to

decide upon disputes over the authorityof state institutions granted by the 1945

The atmosphere ofthe 2011 Moot CourtCompetition for Universitylevel in Indonesia.








Constitution, to decide upon the dissolution of

political parties, and to decide upon disputes

concerning the results of General Elections

as well as one obligation, namely to decide

upon the opinion of the People’s Legislative

Assembly concerning the alleged violations by

the President and/or Vice President pursuant

to the 1945 Constitution.

In performing its adjudication authority, theprocedural law which functions to enforce the

substantive law and to regulate the hearing

process is required. One of them is in the

proceedings of Judicial Review of Law (PUU).

The adjudication is organized under the

procedural law regulated in the Constitutional

Court Law (UU MK) and Constitutional Court

Regulation (PMK).

To support the uninterrupted judicial process,

the parties related to the hearing need tohave the knowledge, understanding, and

skills of proceedings. On the other hand,

at its age of 8 year, the many people

still have no idea of the procedural law in

the Constitutional Court. This is what lies

behind the Constitutional Court’s organizing

the Moot Court Competition for university

level in Indonesia 2011 (Moot Court 2011)

with the aim to provide education and

dissemination of knowledge, understanding,

and proficiency in the proceedings of the


As the forum to disseminate the procedural

law in the Constitutional Court, the first Moot

Court 2011 raised the big theme the Moot

Court competition for Universities Level in

Indonesia 2011 namely Judicial Review of

Law (PUU) under the 1945 Constitution, with

the provisions of articles and or Law that

have not been decided upon, including those

being reviewed in the Constitutional Court.

This event was attended by teams of college

students representing each college from all

over Indonesia who had to come from the

Law Faculty. As many as 53 universities across

Indonesia were recorded to participate in the

activities held during November 10-13 2011.

In the end, Andalas University became the

First Winner of the Moot Court 2011 followed

by Gadjah Mada University and Parahyangan

Catholic University as the Second Winnerand the Third Winner.

Colloquium

The stipulation of the fourth amendment to

the 1945 Constitution at the Annual Session

of the People’s Consultative Assembly in 2002

marked a new era of the implementation

of national and state system. A constitution

being the product of reform was producedas the constitutional framework for building

a new Indonesia that would be more just,

dignified, and fair. The year 2002 and the

following years became a phase of improved

consolidation, with the hope for more

democratic and modern state administration

so as to facilitate collective efforts to realize

the aim of the state administration as well

as to reduce the possibility of recurrence of

a repressive and authoritarian state.

The consolidation phase of the constitution

should become the agenda of all elements

of the nation considering that constitutional

changes have fundamentally revolutionized the

construction of the 1945 Constitution. One

of the requirements for the Constitution to

be implemented is the understanding of the

constitution by all elements of the nation

because in the end, the level and quality

of democracy in Indonesia will be largely

determined by how far the constitution has




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

been understood by the state administrators

and the people as the holders of sovereignty.

The Constitution is a reflection of the

will of the people who must always be

present in every breath of state policy. The

Constitution is the pulse of the people’s

aspirations regarding their ideals, hopes, and

future. Therefore, the dissemination of the

constitution is an urgent agenda which must

be implemented.

The Constitutional Court (MK) is a state

institution established under the amendments

to the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional

Court has a strategic role because it has

authority to hear and to conduct judicial

review laws under the 1945 Constitution, to

decide upon disputes over the authority of

the state institutions whose authorities are

granted by the 1945 Constitution, to decide

upon the dissolution of political parties,and to decide upon disputes concerning

the results of general elections. Given the

importance and the strategic role of the

Constitutional Court, it is considered necessary

for the existence of this new institution to

be known to and understood by various

circles, both in the aspects of its position,

function and authority within the framework

of the new state system. On the basis

of such consideration, considering that the

Constitutional Court is a new state institution,it is deemed necessary and essential for

presence of this institution to be known to

and understood by all people, both in the

aspects of position, authority, obligations

and on progress of the implementation of

its duties or concerning its procedural law.

For this reason, the Constitutional Court

took the initiative to hold a colloquium with

various circles. In 2011, the Constitutional

Court conducted a colloquium with Aisiyah,

the General Election Supervisory Board ofthe Republic of Indonesia, Students’ Executive

Constitutional CourtJustice Hamdan Zoelva(right) in a colloquium formembers of the GeneralElection Commissionand the Regional GeneralElection Commission.








Board of the University of Indonesia, Fatayat

NU, Leimena Institute, Cipayung Group, the

Ministry of Religious Affairs, the Ministry

of Education and Culture, the General

Election Commission, Muslimat NU, Youth of

Muhammadiyah, the National Police of the

Republic of Indonesia, Puan Amal Hayati, the

Army of the Republic of Indonesia, the Navy

of the Republic of Indonesia, the Air Force

of the Republic of Indonesia, as well asPusat Syarikat Islam and Central Leadership

of Wanita Syarikat Islam.

Media Publicat ions of theConstitutional Court

The role of a judicial institution changes over

time due to external influences that position

the legislative and the executive at the same

level as the legislative and policy makers.Therefore, the judiciary is required to play

an active role by taking the corrective role

and by prioritizing judicial activism. In addition,

other external factors are the people are

becoming more concerned with information,

the mass media’s major role, as well as

the perspective of transparency, accountability

and freedom to obtain information.

The demands and awareness for the justices

to apply the law in cases they handle inan impartial and transparent manner, for the

courts to meet the principles of democracy

by increasing accountability and transparency,

for judicial administration to be held in

an efficient, quality, and responsive manner

according to the needs of the justice seekers

become very strong internal factors which

influence the change in the role of the

judicial institution. The strengthened role of

the judicial institution in the aforementioned

context needs a breakthrough to furtherensure its accountability. In addition to the

traditional accountability such as appeal

mechanisms, discipline and evaluation of

the performance of the justices, based on

Voermans studies, modern accountability is

also required in the form of the public’s

right to know and obtain information about

the courts and judicial procedures, including

information about the decisions and judicial

administration.

In relation to the transparent information,

the Constitutional Court took the initiative to

publish some of media products in order to

disseminate its presence as a new institution

and to enhance the culture of constitutional

awareness among the public. Some media

publication products are KONSTITUSI Magazine,

MK TV, MK Radio, and books published by

the Secretariat General of the Constitutional

Court and Konpress Publisher. Not forgotten

is the good relationship between theConstitutional Court and the mass media

which becomes one of the external factors

creating transparency and accountability

of the Constitutional Court as a judicial

institution.

Konstitusi Magazine

In 2001, the Court also published “Konstitusi”

magazine once in every month. TheKonstitusi magazine informs the activities of

the Constitutional Court, in particular the

development of the case hearings and the

activities of the Constitutional Court through

the Main Report and the Courtroom rubrics.

In addition, people who want to write about

their views are given the opportunity to write

both for Opinion, Letters from Readers and

Review rubrics.

The Konstitusi magazine also presents generalknowledge presented in several rubrics,




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

Konstitusi Magazine in 2011.

P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l C o u r t /

G a n i e ]

including Classical Literature, Literature,

Law Dictionary, Traces of the Constitution

(profiles of the founding fathers), Horizon

(Constitutional Courts in various countries),

Various Figures, and Konstitusiana which

contains various unique and interesting

stories. Konstitusi magazine is distributed

free of charge to all stakeholders. Those

who have not obtained it can download

it at www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id. It was

recorded during 2011 that 11 editions werecreated and distributed and 1 edition in the

printing process.

MKTV and MK RADIO

Since August 2005 up to date, the

Constitutional Court has operated a television

program of the Constitutional Court (MKTV)

and MK Radio. Access to this information

is a means for communities throughout thecountry to enrich and to find out information

about the Constitutional Court, the hearings

of the Constitutional Court, and the latest

hearing issues. The program can be enjoyed

by the general community and is realized

in cooperation with RRI throughout Indonesia.

Information on hearings and various activities

of the Constitutional Court can be accessed

by all the people throughout Indonesia.

This program is expected to contribute to

building the culture of constitutional awareness

among the community in relation to theirconstitutional rights guaranteed in the 1945

Constitution.

This is similar to the purpose of the launching

of MKTV program under the banner of Demi

Gisela in 2011. Some programs which become

the mainstay programs of MKTV to develop

the culture of constitutional awareness, namely

among other things, MK Files (broadcasted by

TVOne), Berita MK (broadcasted by TVOne

and Metro TV), Suara Anda Suara Konstitusi(Metro TV), as well as Jurnal MK (TVRI).







Book Publication

In 2011, several times the Secretariat General

and the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional

Court also compiled and published books on

issues of state administration, procedural law,

constitution, democracy and general elections.

In addition, the Constitutional Court has also

reprinted the Profile the Constitutional Court

(reprint), Textbook of Procedural Law in theConstitutional Court (reprint), Compilation on

the Constitutional Court and Democracy by

Constitutional Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi,

Technical Guidelines on the proceedings in

cases of dispute over the results of General

Election of regional head and deputy regional

head etc.

The Constitutional Court has a strategic role

for the development of science for society.

Not many state agencies and institutionsare trying to position the community as an

important part in its institutional development.

This endeavor is also important because it

also helps build the constitutional awareness.

Publication of scientific literature in the

Constitutional Court has the theme of the

Constitution, constitutional law, and the

procedural law the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court and theMass Media

As a judicial institution prioritizing transparency

and accountability, the Constitutional Court

always tries to open itself to the community.

One way in which the Constitutional Court is

establishing cooperation with the mass media.

The mass media functions as a medium

of information, education, entertainment andsocial control which can also be used to

fulfill the public’s right to know and uphold

the basic values of democracy.

The mass media plays an important role

for the development of the Constitutional

Court for eight years of its existence, such

as the dissemination of the decisions of

the Constitutional Court. For example, one

day after the Constitutional Court’s decision

is pronounced, the public can access thedecision fully and comprehensively through

the print media. National media which often

publish decisions of the Constitutional Court

during 2011 are, among others, Koran

Tempo, Republika, Seputar Indonesia, Media

Indonesia, Indo Pos, Koran Jakarta, Suara

Karya, Republika, as well as Gatra.

Table 19

Recapitulation of Publication of the Decisions in the Mass Media in 2011

No. Case Number Publica on Date Mass Media

1. Case Number 23/PUU-VIII/2010 and Case Number26/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Review of Law No.27/2009 concerning the People’s Consulta veAssembly, the People’s Legisla ve Assembly, theRegional Representa ve Council, and the RegionalPeople's Legisla ve Assembly)

January 12, 2011 Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaRepublikaMedia IndonesiaIndo PosGatra

2. Case Number 8/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Review ofLaw No. 26/1954 concerning Right of Inquiry ofthe People’s Legisla ve Assembly)

January 31, 2011 Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaRepublikaMedia Indonesia

Rakyat MerdekaSuara KaryaIndo PosGatra




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

3. Case Number 5/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 11/2008 concerning ElectronicInforma on and Transac on)

February 24, 2011 Koran TempoRepublikaSuara KaryaIndo Pos

4. Case Number 1/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Review ofLaw No. 3/2007 concerning Juvenile Court)

February 24, 2011 Seputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaKoran TempoRepublikaGatra

5. Case Number 3/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 27/2007 concerning Management ofCoastal Areas and Small Islands)

June 16, 2011 Seputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaKoran TempoRepublikaGatra

6. Case Number 5/PUU-IX/2011 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 30/2002 concerning the Corrup onEradica on Commission)

June 20, 2011 Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaSuara KaryaRakyat MerdekaIndo PosRepublikaGatra

7. Case Number 12/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 36/2009 concerning Health)

June 27, 2011 Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaRepublika

8. Case Number 15/PUU-IX/2011 (Judicial Review ofLaw No. 2/2011 concerning Amendment to LawNo. 2/2008 concerning Poli cal Par es)

July 6, 2011 Seputar IndonesiaMedia Indonesia

9. Case Number 35/PUU-IX/2011 (Judicial Review ofLaw No. 2/2011 concerning Amendment to LawNo. 2/2008 concerning Poli cal Par es)

August 4, 2011 Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaRepublikaGatra

10. Case Number 65/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 8/1981 concerning the CriminalProcedure Code)

August 8, 2011 Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaRepublika

11. Case Number 62/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 37/2008 concerning Ombudsman ofthe Republic of Indonesia)

August 18, 2011 Indo PosMedia IndonesiaSeputar IndonesiaGatra

12. Case Number 55/PUU-VIII/2010 and Case Number37/PUU-IX/2011 (Judicial Review of Law No.18/2004 concerning Planta on)

Sep tember 19 ,2011

Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaMedia Indonesia

RepublikaGatra







13. Case Number 58/PUU-VIII/2010 and Case Number29/PUU-IX/2011 (Judicial Review of Law No.20/2003 concerning Na onal Educa on System)

Sep tember 29 ,2011

Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaRepublikaGatraSuara Karya

14. Case Number 2/PUU-IX/2011 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 18/2009 concerning Livestock andAnimal Health)

October 6, 2011 Seputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaSuara Karya

15. Case Number 48/PUU-IX/2011 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 8/2011 concerning Amendment toLaw No. 23/2004 concerning the Cons tu onalCourt)

October 18, 2011 Koran TempoSeputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaGatra

16. Case Number 49/PUU-IX/2011(Judicial Reviewof Law No. 8/2011 concerning Amendment toLaw No. 23/2004 concerning the Cons tu onalCourt)

October 18, 2011 Suara KaryaSeputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaRepublikaGatra

17. Case Number 34/PUU-VIII/2010 (Judicial Reviewof Law No. 36/2009 concerning Health)

November 1, 2011 Seputar IndonesiaMedia IndonesiaRepublika

18. Case Number 108/PHPU.D-IX/2011 (Disputes onthe Results of 2011 General Elec on of RegionalHead of Aceh Province)

N o v e m b e r 2 5 ,2011

Rakyat Aceh

To facilitate access and to support the

performance of journalists in both printed

and electronic media, the Secretariat General

of the Constitutional Court provides a Media

Center room. The room is provided with

facilities such as personal computers (PC)

with internet access network. To facilitate

the understanding of information, the PublicRelations of the Constitutional Court always

provides press release materials and layout of

the hearing and the list of attendance of the

parties at the hearing of the Constitutional

Court every day. Convenience for the press

members also becomes a concern with fast

and responsive service of the Public Relations

of the Constitutional Court so that the

activities of the Constitutional Court, whether

in relation to the judicial process or the

educational activities of the ConstitutionalCourt can be quickly disseminated through

the media.

Table 20

Recapitulation of the Media Monitoring the News on the Constitutional Court in PrintMedia in 2011

No. Name of Media TOTAL

1. Media Indonesia 834

2. Rakyat Merdeka 681




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

3. Seputar Indonesia 644

4. Suara Karya 504

5. Kompas 474

6. Indo Pos 472

7. Jurnal Nasional 421

8. Sinar Harapan 322

9. Republika 298

10. Suara Pembaruan 293

11. Harian Pelita 269

12. Koran Tempo 215

13. Jakarta Globe 211

14. Koran Jakarta 194

15. The Jakarta Post 157

16. Warta Kota 73

17. Duta Masyarakat 49

18. Majalah Tempo 31

19. Majalah Gatra 22

20. Majalah Forum 18

21. Majalah Trust 6

22. Sumut Pos 5

23. Waspada Medan 3

24. Harian Analisa Medan 2

25. Harian Global Medan 2

26. Pikiran Rakyat 2

27. Tribun Medan 2

28. Gilas 1

29. Harian Andalas Medan 1

30. Harian Mandiri Medan 131. Jawa Pos 1

32. Realitas Medan 1

33. Sinar Indonesia Medan 1Total 6210

Cooperation with the mass media has also

been conducted through the activities of

the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court

Moh. Mahfud MD and General Secretary of

the Constitutional Court Janedjri M. Gaffar tobe resource persons in the talk shows at

national private television stations, such as

Metro TV, QTV, and TVOne. This also becomes

one of the ways for the Constitutional Court

to develop and increase the culture of

constitutional awareness among the public.







Working Visit

During 2011, the Secretariat General and


Court also fully supported the constitutional

court justices’ activities through working visits

to the various regions. Various activities of

working visit are intended to introduce the

Constitutional Court to the general public as

well as to expect the culture of constitutional

awareness to be embedded at all levels

of society. This activities were conducted

by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional

Court Moh Mahfud MD, Vice Chief Justice

of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki,

and Constitutional Court Justice Harjono,

Constitutional Court Justice M. Akil Mochtar,

Constitutional Court Justice H.M. Arsyad

Sanusi, Constitutional Court Justice Muhammad

Alim, Constitutional Court Justice Maria Farida

Indrati, Constitutional Court Justice Fadlil

Sumadi Ahmad, and Constitutional Court

Justice Hamdan Zoelva.

A working visit of the constitutional justice

is generally conducted by a constitutional

court justice as a guest speaker, lecturer,

keynote speaker, scientific orator, participant,

to attend the inauguration of a doctorate

title, to deliver speech in the book review,

to open a conference and so forth. Related

activities are carried out to introduce the

Constitutional Court as a modern and

reliable judicial institution that discuss theissues of nationality, law and state system,

all being for the purpose of building a

culture of constitutional awareness and legal

development in Indonesia.

Visits of the College Students/Lecturers

A part of the enculturation of constitutional

awareness conducted by the Constitutional

Court is to receive visits by various groups

of college students, participants of the

education and training and lecturers. The

Justice Harjono (center)with the constitutional

court justices from variouscountries in the Court Room

of the Constitutional Court ofSouth Korea

Foto

Public Relations of the Constitutional Court/Fajar Laksono




Pancasila Education





PANCASILA EDUCATION

visits of the various groups show the

enthusiasm of the people to recognize the

Constitutional Court as the institution which

is the guardian and interpreter of the

Constitution. This opportunity is used by

the Constitutional Court to introduce more

profoundly its functions and authorities to the

public. Especially when considering that the

Constitutional Court is located in the capital

city of the state, a visit is very useful toexpand the dissemination of information on

the Constitutional Court

Constitution Chat

The Constitutional Court is one of the judicial

institutions exercising judicial power which

is independent implementing adjudication to

uphold the law and justice. The existence

of the Constitutional Court is regulated in

the 1945 Constitution of the Republic ofIndonesia (hereinafter referred to as the

1945 Constitution) and further in Law Number


Court.

The Constitutional Court as a judicial

institution established as the result of the

amendment to the 1945 Constitution considers

it necessary to establish cooperation with

various partners in order to perform activities

in disseminating its duties and authorities.

Concrete support from various circles to the

Constitutional Court is highly expected so

that the implementation of the duties of the

Constitutional Court can be optimized and can

lead to the achievement of goals. One of the

partners of the Constitutional Court involved

in this is the Center for Constitutional Studies

in the various universities in Indonesia.

On the basis of these ideas, the Constitutional

Court planned activities for disseminating

information on the Constitutional Court and

the constitution in cooperation with regional

Centers for Constitutional Studies to carry

out the activities of constitution chats on

radio, with the expectation that the public

would become accustomed to the news

and information on the development of the

state system and the constitution. Therefore,

the culture of constitutional awareness will

be realized among the people of Indonesia.Constitution chat activities on radio which

would discuss political and constitutional

issues which are very useful to many parties,

namely among others; for internal parties

of the Constitutional Court (constitutional

court justices, structural officials of the

Constitutional Court and employees of the

Constitutional Court) and the Constitutional

Court’s institution for the purpose of

disseminating the development of its duties

and functions for the general public to bemore familiar with it.

In addition, these activities also benefit the

partners (Centers for Constitutional Studies,

Faculties of Law of Universities, Civics

educators and teachers, college students

and students, etc.) and stakeholders (political

parties, General Election Commission/Regional

General Election Commission, state institutions

and ministries, NGOs and other organizations)

to obtain information and news on the

Constitution and the Constitutional Court.

The activities are also expected to create

constitution-based society and a culture

of constitutional awareness, as well as to

increase the community’s understanding of

the Constitutional Court and the procedural

law in the Constitutional Court. In 2011,

the Constitutional Court has established

cooperation with 36 LPP.







DYNAMICS OF THECONSTITUTIONALCOURT




Pancasila Education




DYNAMICS OF THECONSTITUTIONAL COURT

In the Indonesian state system, the

Constitutional Court as the product

of reform in this 2011 reached the

age of eight years in guarding the

state’s constitution. In this year also, the

Constitutional Court has experienced a

number of important events, where such

events were related to the replacement of

constitutional court justices, and the change

of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional

Court, as well as other important events.

The first event was, for example, the

replacement of constitutional court justice M.

Arsyad Sanusi by Anwar Usman. Proposed

by the Supreme Court (MA), Arsyad Sanusi

had resigned as a constitutional court

justice. To fill the vacancy, the Supreme

Court proposed Anwar Usman to replace

M. Arsyad Sanusi to be a constitutional

court justice.

Meanwhile, President Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono on Wednesday (6/3), at 11:00

am, witnessed the taking of oath of

Constitutional Court Justice Anwar Usman at

the State Palace, Jakarta. Such appointment

was based on Presidential Decree.18/P Year

2011, stipulated on March 28, 2011.

In his curriculum vitae, Anwar Usman was

the 7th constitutional court justice proposed

by the Supreme Court and became the

18th constitutional court justice in the

Constitutional Court. He also has an

educational background of Bachelor’s Degree

(S1) at the Faculty of Law of Jakarta Islamic

University (1984), and Master’s Degree (S2)

from the Master of Law Study Program

of STIH IBLAM, Jakarta (2001), as well

as doctorate degree (S3) from the Study

Program of School Policy from University

of Gadjah Mada (2010).

Consolidation of the Constitutional

Court Justices

Foto

President SusiloBambang YudhoyonocongratulatedConstitution JusticeAnwar Usman afterbeing inaugurated at theMerdeka Palace, Jakarta,Wednesday (6/3).








After pronouncing his oath before the

President, Anwar Usman officially became

a constitutional court justice serving in the

Constitutional Court. He would immediately

join the 8 (ei ght ) other const itut ional

court justices, including Moh. Mahfud

MD (Chief Justice of the Constitutional

Court), Achmad Sodiki (Vice-Chief Justice

of the Constitutional Court), Ahmad Fadlil

Sumadi, Hamdan Zoelva, Harjono, Maria

Farida Indrati, Muhammad Alim, and M.

Akil Mochtar.

Meanwhile, the next important event was

the change of the position of Chief

Justice of the Constitutional Court during

the 2008-2011 period that was held by

Moh. Mahfud MD. However, on August 13,

2011, the post has ended. Therefore, on

August 18, 2011, At 14:00 pm, a public

hearing was held to elect the Chief Justice

of the Constitutional Court attended by

9 (nine) the constitutional court justices,

in the Plenary Room, Constitutional Court

Building, Jakarta.

The election process took place quite

quickly, namely that the election process

was held in one round only. In the voting

conducted by the 9 (nine) Constitutional

court justices, Moh. Mahfud MD (Chief justice

of the Constitutional Court for 2008-2011

period) acquired five votes, followed by

Constitutional Court Justice Harjono (Vice

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for

May-August 2008 period) who acquired two

votes. Meanwhile, the youngest Constitutional

court justice in the Constitutional Court,

Hamdan Zoelva, acquired one vote and

there was one abstention vote.

With the result of vote recapitulation, Moh.

Mahfud MD was stipulated to be the elected

as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court

Atmosphere inthe election of the

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court for2011-2014 period at thePlenary Court Room of

the Constitutional Court,Jakarta, Thursday (18/8).





Pancasila Education





for the second period of 2011-2014. In his

curriculum vitae, Mahfud is better known

as a lecturer and Professor of Law at the

Faculty of Law of Universitas Islam Indonesia

(UII) in Yogyakarta since 1984.

Before serving as a constitutional court

justice, Mahfud MD had also served as

Minister of Defense of the Republic of

Indonesia (2000-2001), Minister of Justiceand Human Rights (2001), Rector of Islamic

University of Kadiri (2003-2006), member of

the People’s Legislative Assembly, Deputy

Chairman of the Legislative Board of the


of Indonesia (2007-2008).

Then on Monday, August 22, 2011, at the

Plenary Court Room of the Constitutional

Court, Moh. Mahfud MD who had been

elected as Chief Justice of the Constitutional

Court took the oath in the presence of

eight other constitutional court justices

accompanied by their wives. That oath

taking was also witnessed also by the

chairpersons of both government institutions

and non-governmental institutions.

Meanwhile, in his speech, Mahfud said

that the election of Chief Justice ofthe Constitutional Court for the 2011-

2014 period was very sterile from any

money game issue or political pressure or

threats. This signed the independency of

Constitutional court justices, and that they

could not be influenced by names being

proposed by any person, including the

institutions which had nominated them.

Foto

Oath taking of theelected Chief Justice ofthe Constitutional Court,Moh. Mahfud MD, forthe period of 2011-2014,Jakarta, Monday (22/8), atthe Plenary Court Roomof the ConstitutionalCourt.








Joint Activities of ConstitutionalCourt Staff

The success of an organization in achieving

its stipulated purpose is determined by the

success of the employees in performing

the tasks to support the authority of

constitutional court justices. Similarly,

the success of an institution like the

Constitutional Court in performing its

judicial authori ty and obligations cannot be

separated from the role of the leadership

and structural staff within the purview of


Based on the foregoing, at the breaks of

their activities of performing state duties,

the 9 (nine) constitutional court justices

conduct various activities together with the

staff and employees of the Secretariat


Constitutional Court. Such activities are

intended to maintain good relationship

and to build a professional work ethics

in an effort to improve the performance

and success of the employees in carrying

out their state duties.

The first activity, for example, was held

on April 19, 2011, which was a friendship

gathering of the justices on the 8th floor

Constitutional Court Building. That event was

attended also by a number of structural

officials of the Constitutional Court, including

Secretary General of the Constitutional Court

Janedjri M. Gaffar and Registrar of the

Constitutional Court Kasianur Sidauruk.

They gathered not to discuss important

decisions that would be passed. The meeting

was held for the purpose of friendship and

friendly gathering of fellow constitutional

court justices and the officials of the

Constitutional Court. Thus, the activity

created a fully relaxed and family-like

atmosphere in the room.

Internal Activities of the

Constitutional Court JusticesChief Justice of theConstitutional Court

(MK), Moh. MahfudMD with Constitutional

Court Justices Harjono,Maria Farida Indrati,

and Anwar Usman in afriendly gathering with

all employees, especiallythe Secretary General

of the ConstitutionalCourt Janedjri M. Gaffar

and the Registrar ofthe Constitutional Court

Kasianur Sidauruk, atthe 8th oor of the

Constitutional CourtBuilding on Tuesday

(19/4).





Pancasila Education





The next activity was in the form of

guidance and enlightenment by Chief Justice

of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud

MD, accompanied by Secretary General

of the Constitutional Court Janedjri M.

Gaffar to all staff and employees of the

Constitutional Court, in the Hall at the

Ground Floor of the Constitutional Court

Building, Jakarta. In his briefing on July 29,

2011, Mahfud emphasized the importanceof all employees’ maintaining the credibility

of the Constitutional Court in upholding

the law and justice.

The Constitutional Court has been formed

because law cannot be enforced properly

without one that guards it. So the main task

of the Constitutional Court is to enforce

law and justice at all levels in guarding

the enforcement of the constitution.

Meanwhile on August 13, 2011, the

Constitutional Court entered its eighth

anniversary. Therefore, on Friday, August 12,

2011, the Constitutional Court held its 8th

Anniversary Commemoration Ceremony, in

front of the Constitutional Court Building,

Jakarta. At this time, Chief Justice of

the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD

became the inspector of the ceremony,

accompanied by other constitutional court

justices.

Also present at the ceremony were echelon I

and echelon II officials, as well as structural

employees in the Constitutional Court. In

his speech, Mahfud said that during the

period of eight years, the Constitutional

Court had experienced in the dynamics

of its constitutional duties. It cannot be

disputed that the Constitutional Court had

carved valuable experiences in the life as

a state and based on the constitution.

Since the establishment of the Constitutional

Court until today, at least the Constitutional

Foto

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD accompaniedby Secretary-Generalof the ConstitutionalCourt Janedjri M. Gaffarprovided guidance

and enlightenmentto all the staff of theConstitutional Court onFriday (29/7), in the Hallat the Ground Floor ofthe Constitutional CourtBuilding.








Court has received a total of 855

constitutional cases. This indicates the public’sgreat expectation for the Constitutional Court

to settle constitutional issues that were

previously unavailable.

The same day of August 12, 2011 coincided

with the month of Ramadan. In that month,

all Muslims are required to perform religious

worship of fasting. Under this situation, they

have to re-attach the good relationship

between the Constitutional Court Justices

and the employees of the ConstitutionalCourt, and the Constitutional Court held

a joint fast-breaking with constitutional

court justices and all employees of in

the Constitutional Court, which was also

made an event of the friendship gathering

between constitutional court justices and

former constitutional court justices.

In the current period and the previous

period, the Idul Fitri 1432 H was intended

to enhance charity and devotion of religious

worship of fasting performed throughout

the month of Ramadhan, as well as toenhance brotherly relationships both among

constitutional court justices and employees

of the Constitutional Court, on 6 September

2011, and then the Constitutional Court

held halal bihalal.

In his advice, Mahfud MD said that

apologizing to fellow human beings is a

matter of humanity rather than a matter

of religion, as any religion teaches human

beings to love one another. To that end,to the brothers of any religion, let us

love and forgive one another and shown

by Prophet Muhammad SAW.

In addition, to increase the understanding

and significance of the history in the

constitution, a judicial institution such

as the Constitutional Court performs

var ious anniversary commemorat ion

ceremonies considered necessary in order

to create constitutional awareness, such

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court,

Moh. Mahfud MD gaveadvice in the halal bihalal

of the big family of theConstitutional Court,

Tuesday (6/9).

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/Yogi




Pancasila Education





as the commemoration day of Kesaktian

Pancasila with the theme, “With the

Commemoration of the Kesaktian Pancasila

Day, we Strengthen the Spirit of Unity and

Integration of Indonesia with Character.” The

commemoration ceremony was carried out

on October 3, 2011.

Me a n wh i l e , on Oc tobe r 28 , 2 011 ,

the Constitutional Court also held acommemoration ceremony of the 83rd Youth

Pledge Day in 2011. Then, on November

10, 2011, the Constitutional Court also held

a Commemoration of the Heroes’ Day with

the theme of “With the Spirit of Heroism,

We Build the Character of the Nation.”

All such ceremonies were held openly in

front of the Constitutional Court Building,

Jakarta, with the expectation of creating

openness and closeness of the ConstitutionalCourt with the community. This is in

accordance with the Constitutional Court’s

mission namely, “Realizing the Constitutional

Court as A Modern and Credible Branch

of Judicial Power.” and “Building the

constitutionality of Indonesia and the Culture

of Constitutional Awareness.”

Papers

At the breaks of his activities, Hamdan

Zoelva as the youngest constitutional court justice of the Constitutional Court inst itution,

in 2011, took time to write a paper in the

form of a book entitled “The impeachment

of President in Indonesia,” which was

published by Sinar Grafika Publisher.

In this book, the author carefully outlines

the issue of presidential impeachment

with a review of law and politics which

are intertwined with the presidential

impeachment process in Indonesia. Inaddition, the author also describes the

regulation of impeachment in the Amended

Foto

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD accompaniedby Secretary-Generalof the ConstitutionalCourt Janedjri M. Gaffarprovided guidanceand enlightenmentto all the staff of theConstitutional Court onFriday (29/7), in the Hallat the Ground Floor ofthe Constitutional CourtBuilding.








1945 Constitution, the mechanism of

impeachment, the reason for impeachment,

and impeachment process and forum.

The book is also supplemented with a critical

review of the impeachment of President

Sukarno and President Abdurrahaman

Wahid based on the 1945 Constitution

before the amendment and also describes

the comparison of impeachment betweenthe Constitution of Indonesia and the

Constitutions of the United States, Germany,

Philippines, South Korea, and Lithuania.

With sharp and objective legal and political

analysis, the book which is derived from

dissertation with cum laude predicate will

take the reader into a full understanding

of impeachment. The book is also special

because it was written by a former Member

of the ad hoc Committee III/I BP MPRwho was intensively involved in formulating

the draft articles on impeachment in the

1945 Constitution.

Meanwhile, another constitutional court

justices who wrote a paper in the form

of a book is Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi. In

his paper entitled “Compilation on the

Constitutional Court and Democracy,” Fadlil

Sumadi presents a collection of papers

presented at various seminars or lectures

organized by both the Constitutional Court

and the universities.

Out of a number of papers contained

in it, it can be seen that the focus of

Fadlil’s discussion, although predominantly

on the Constitutional Court in all its

aspects, also discusses some conceptualand contemporary issues. In one of them,

he talks about the role of Nahdlatul Ulama

in the context of strengthening civil society

in Indonesia.

It is indeed recognized that the scattering

ideas which have been compiled into

this book describe the passion and spirit

to develop Indonesia as a democratic

constitutional state based on the principles

of constitutionalism. Issues discussed arealways related to the constitution, namely

the 1945 Constitution, and the existence of

the Constitutional Court as the Guardian of

Constitution. Moreover, he also talks about

the relationship between the Constitutional

Court and social justice.

Therefore, for the purpose of spreading

ideas and thoughts about the constitution

to a wide audience, in 2011, the Konstitusi




Pancasila Education





Press deemed it necessary to publish it.

Distribution of this book is expected to

increase understanding and awareness of

the importance of constitutionalism and the

role of the Constitutional Court in the life

of the nation and the state.

Awards

By staying consistent and concerned with

the efforts of enforcement of Human Rights

(HAM) in Indonesia, one of the constitutional

court justices, namely Chief Justice of

the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD

received the “Man of the Year 2010” award

on Thursday, January 27, 2011, at the

Press Council Building, Jakarta. This award

was given by Rakyat Merdeka Online (RM

Online) to Mahfud MD, as the figure of

justice Mahfud was considered to be an

inspiration and to have high performancein the field during 2010.

In addition, the award received by Mahfud

was in category of “the Guard of Rights”

with his figure who was consistent and

concerned with the efforts to uphold

human rights in Indonesia. Mahfud said in

his speech that in fact the source of all

problems between us was the number of

violations of human rights which cannot be

properly safeguarded by law enforcement.

Therefore, in the future, a massive movement

of the people, the mass media and NGOs

is necessary to campaign that one of

the most important points to solve the

problems of our nation today is by putting

the main agenda to provide protection of

human rights through the enforcement of

the constitution.

Later this year, Mahfud MD also received

the “Newsmaker of the Year” award in

the program of Seputar Indonesia Award

Foto

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court,Moh. Mahfud MD receivedthe “Man of the Year2010” award at the PressCouncil Building Jakarta,Thursday (27/1).








2011, held at the RCTI Studio in West

Jakarta on Tuesday, May 17, 2011. With

the award, the man from Sampang, Madura,

won over two other nominees who are not

less famous, namely the President of the

United States Barack Obama, and former

Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati.

In the consideration, Mahfud was believed to

always have an impact and contribution to

the journey of the nation, and was expert

in his field, as well as having high integrity.

Meanwhile, the award was given based on

the acquired Short Message Service (SMS),

the coverage in the period of May 2010-

May 2011. The contested categories were

the result of testing and selection by the

verification team consisting of analysts and

media practitioners.

In his speech, Mahfud said that he often got

criticized for not commenting on somethingz

in the news, and some said that justices

should be silent. However, he believed that

they should make people aware. People’s

awareness should be excited to claim fortheir rights.

Meanwhile, on August 19, 2011, Moh.

Mahfud received another award in the

form of Soegeng Sarjadi Award on Good

Governance individually by Soegeng Sarjadi

School of Government (SSSG). This time,

the award was presented directly by the

founder of SSSG, Soegeng Sarjadi, at Four

Season Hotel, Kuningan, South Jakarta,

in the presence of a number of national

figures, namely among others, Fadjroel

Rachman, Sukardi Rinakit, Jimly Asshiddiqie,

OC Kaligis, Ahmad Mubarok.

In this year, Mahfud MD also won “Marketer

of the Year Indonesia 2011” award from

MarkPlus Inc. held at the Pacific Place of

Ritz Carlton Hotel, Jakarta, Thursday, July

15, 2011. MarkPlus Inc. is a marketing

consulting firm in the field marketing led

by Hermawan Kertajaya. As a holding

company, MarkPlus has also penetrated

the business in other fields, for example

in the media sector, as MarkPlus has the

Marketeers magazine.

Mahfud himself received the award becausehe was considered to have played the

Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court,

Moh. Mahfud MD receivedthe “Newsmaker of

the Year” award in theSeputar Indonesia Award

2011 on Tuesday (12/5).





Pancasila Education





role of spreading positive marketing spirit,

with a good performance in government

and that he had effective social impact

in the society.

Another award was also won by the

youn gest Co ns ti tu ti on al Co ur t Ju st ic e

Hamdan Zoelva. In this case, he was given

the legal studies professor award from the

China University of Political Science andLaw (CUPL) on Friday, May 27, 2011. It

is worth noting that CUPL is considered

one of the best universities in China. And

in 2009, based on the assessment of

the Ministry of Education of China, CUPL

gain the second rank among the top law

schools in China.

Meanwhile, in the view of CUPL, Hamdan

Zoelva was considered to have high

dedication and capability of transformingvalues of the universal law in developing

world civilization, particularly in the field of

business law and state administration. One

form of Hamdan Zoelva’s dedication in the

field of business law was to benefit the

investment climate of the world, including

Indonesia as a subject of global trade.

In the field of state administration, Hamdan

Zoelva was considered by CUPL to have

been involved in the committee to discuss

and formulate the amendments to the

1945 Constitution and in the Constitutional

Court of Indonesia which had contributednormatively to the advancement and

development of legal science. In addition,

Hamdan’s dedication, according to the CUPL,

as a legal practitioner and academician in

the Faculty of Law of Islamic University of

As-Syafi’iyah also deserved high respect.

Websites of Constitutional CourtJustices

www.mahfudmd.com

“Showered” with awards, from Madura to

the United States

Foto

Constitutional CourtJustice Hamdan Zoelvawas given the legalstudies professor awardby the China University

of Political Science andLaw (CUPL), Friday (27/5).

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/ Habloel Mawadi







Mahfud MD, who does not know him? Yes.

He is the leader the state institution of

the Constitutional Court in Indonesia. His

figure and credibility in the eyes of the

public is undoubted, as proved in 2011

only, with the 4 (four) awards of different

categories being given to him.

The forms of awards included “Man of

the Year 2010” award from the RakyatMerdeka Online (RM Online). In addition,

he also won the “Marketer of the Year

Indonesia 2011” award from MarkPlus Inc.

at the Pacific Place of Ritz Carlton Hotel.

Subsequently, Moh. Mahfud MD also received

Soegeng Sarjadi on Good Governance Award

individually from Soegeng Sarjadi School of

Government (SSSG).

Meanwhile, Mahfud MD also won the

“Newsmaker of the Year” award in SeputarIndonesia Award 2011. With the awards,

the man from Sampang, Madura, ranked

above two other nominees who are not

less famous, namely U.S. President Barack

Obama, and former Finance Minister Sri

Mulyani Indrawati. In the considerations,

Mahfud was considered to have always had

an impact and contribution to the journey

of the nation, being an expert in the field,

as well as having high integrity.

This site is presented so that people may

know the figure of a Mahfud MD better

who is persistent and consistent in giving

contributions to the nation of Indonesia.

This site will also help Mahfud to reach

the general public who want to learn a

lot about him. The public will also knowwhat Mahfud is thinking about in addressing

current issues.

For example, in his personal website, he

proposes Special Elections (Elections) in

Papua. In his opinion, both the Legislative

and the Regional Head in relation to

Election in Papua cannot be equated with

other regions in Indonesia. This will be

done because Papua has not been ready

for a system applied nationally. Elections in

Papua should be conducted in accordance

with their own culture of and Customs.

www.akilmochtar.com

Becoming a Law Warrior in the constitution

enforcement institution in Indonesia

Website of the Chief Justiceof the Constitutional Court,

Moh. Mahfud MD.





Pancasila Education





With his tenacity, the man from the border

area between Indonesia and Malaysia it

could be a law warrior in the constitution

enforcement institution in Indonesia. The

man is none other than Constitutional Court

Justice Akil Mochtar. The constitutional court

justice used to spend his childhood and

adolescence in Putussibau, the capital of

Kapuas Hulu regency, West Kalimantan.

This can be seen in his personal website.

Through this site, people will have a better

understand of what he is thinking about in

relation to a number of cases, associated

with a number of activities during his

service as a constitutional court justice

and spokesman for the Constitutional Court,

as well as his activities with the broader

community.

The man who often makes sharp sentencesalternated with humor, while remaining

firm at hearings, also presents a number

of items in his personal site, including

news item on his personal website, where

Akil made an insinuation at the Ministry

of Law and Human Rights (HAM) when

handling the case Mesuji in Lampung. In

his comments, he said the government then

lost much in dealing with cases of human

rights violations.

New Human Rights violations occur while old

cases have not been completed. The issue

has until now become a difficult homework

for the government to be resolved so that

it will not explode in the future. In his

opinion, “The Ministry of Law and Human

Rights (Kemenkumham) talk too much aboutgeneral cases, but it is lousy when talking

about human rights.”

No less interesting in this site, Akil

presents the news related to his dissenting

opinion against 8 other constitutional court

justices about the service term of Busyro

Muqoddas as head of the Corruption

Eradication Commission being petitioned to

the Constitutional Court. He said the petition

was not an issue of constitutionality ofgeneral or abstract norms, but rather it

was a matter of law implementation in the

field or a matter of concrete norms.

hamdanzoelva.wordpress.com

With a lot of experience, he has won the

title of Professor

Foto

Website of ConstitutionalCourt Justice AkilMochtar.








All great people will make great mistakes.

A great person will also have a lot of

great experience as well. This has been

experienced by the youngest justice in

the Constitutional Court, Hamdan Zoelva.

Although still young, he has a lot of

important experience, with approximately 10

(ten) organizations he had joined.

For example, he used to be a member of theIndonesian Advocates’ Association (Ikadin),

Member of the Indonesian Bar Association

and Member of the AAI Advisory Board

(2005-present), co-founder and Head of

the Brotherhood Indonesian Muslim Workers

(1998-2000). Until now, he has been also

the Deputy Chief Justice of the ASEAN

Muslim Youth Secretariat (AMSEC) based in

Kuala Lumpur (2001 - present), and since

2005 until now, he has also been active

as secretary of the constitutional forum.

We can see this in his personal website.

Moreover, this site can help people get to

know more him even more closely, how

Hamdan Zoelva poured some of his thoughts

in the form of papers, opinions, and even

in book form in this site. Particularly

in the paper entitled “Judicial Review

without Limits” Hamdan said that there

was no judicial review without limit, even

by the Constitutional Court. In conducting

judicial review under the Consti tution, the

Constitutional Court is limited by the

provisions of the Constitution itself, and

the general legal principles, as well as the

applicable laws.

In addition, having a high dedication and

capability to transform universal legal valuesin building the world civilization of the

world, particularly in the field of business

law and state administration, Hamdan Zoelva

was received the legal studies professor

award from China University of Political

Science and Law (CUPL). It is worth noting

that CUPL is regarded as one of the best

universities in China.

All the other constitutional court justices,

namely among others, Ahmad Sodiki,Harjono, Maria Farida Indrarti, Muhammad

Alim, Sumadi Fadlil Ahmad, and Anwar

Usman, have different opinions and

specialties in addressing the condition

of the existing development in Indonesia.

More specifically, this can be viewed on

the Constitutional Court website, at www.

mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id

Website of theConstitutional Court

Justice HamdanZoelva.





Pancasila Education





Development of the Support of Generaland Judicial Administration of the

Constitutional Court

General Administration

In realizing the Constitutional Court as

one of the actors of modern and credible

branches of judicial power, and to support

the duties of constitutional court justices

in the field of general administration, on

Wednesday, April 13, 2011, the Constitutional

Court inaugurated 20 (twenty) new officers.

The process of appointment and transfer

was based on Decree No. 049/KEP/SET.MK/2011 dated April 12, 2011.

In this case, the officials appointed and

transferred were the Head of General

Bureau of the Constitutional Court Saiful

Bachri (old position) into the new position

as Head of Public Relations and Protocol

Bureau of the Constitutional Court and the

Head of Public Relations and Protocol Noor

Sidharta (old position) into the new position

as the Head of the Constitutional Court’sCenter for Research and Study.

In addition, the Head of Administration

of the Constitutional Court Mulyono (old

position) occupied a new position as the

Head of the General Affairs Bureau of

the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, the

Head of the Hearing Department of the

Constitutional Court Triyono Edy Budhiarto

(old position) occupied a new position as the

Head of the Case and Trial Administration

of the Constitutional Court. Approximately

the aforementioned 4 (four) officials, notincluding 16 other officials, occupied new

positions in support of performance of the

general administration.

Furthermore, the event which was held on

the 8th floor of the Constitutional Court

building was attended by Chief Justice of

the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD,


Achmad Sodiki, Constitutional Court Justice

Akil Mochtar, and Secretary General of theConstitutional Court Janedjri M. Gaffar. As

Foto

Secretary Generalof the ConstitutionalCourt Janedjri M.Gaffar inaugurated 20new of cials in theConstitutional Courton Wednesday (13/4),on the 8th oor of theConstitutional CourtBuilding.

Public Relations of the ConstitutionalCourt/ Andhini SF







Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court,Mahfud MD expected that all employees

should develop the Constitutional Court’s

institution based on available channels.

Due to the its assessment and the

assessment of the general community, as

well as the assessment of the performance

of state institutions written in the newspapers,

or through interactive dialogue, seminars and

so forth, the Constitutional Court is still

considered as an institution to feel proudof, and the most efficient as well as an

indisputable institution.

Judicial Administration

In addition to rearranging the Human

Resou rce s s y s t e m in t he g ene ra l

administration, the Constitutional Court also

has also improved its Judicial Administration.

In this case, there was a significant event

in which there was a change of theRegistrar of the Constitutional Court due

to the long period of vacancy in judicialleadership or registrar’s leadership. This

was because in 2010, the Registrar Zaenal

Arifin Hoesein retired.

Therefore, to maintain the uninterrupted

implementation and independency of the

judiciary of the Const itut ional Court in

conducting hearings, and pursuant to

Presidential Decree Number 19/N/2011, the

Constitutional Court officially announced

Kasianur Sidauruk as the new Registrarof Constitutional Court, and officially

inaugurated by the Chief Justice of the

Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, on

Tuesday, February 1, 2011.

It is recorded that Kasianur Sidauruk used to

become the Head of the Case and Hearing

Administration Bureau of the Constitutional

Court, and he also was used to be the

Acting Registrar of the Constitutional

Court before Presidential Decree number19/N/2011. Therefore, the Constitutional

New RegistrarKasianur Sidauruk

was of ciallyinaugurated by the

Chief Justice ofthe Constitutional

Court, Moh. MahfudMD, Tuesday (1/1).





Pancasila Education





Court appointed Kasianur Sidauruk as the

Registrar of the Constitutional Court to

replace Zaenal Arifin Hoesein who entered

retirement.

Another important event occurred on Friday,

July 29, 2011, when the Constitutional Court

appointed three (3) Substitute Registrars,

namely Ahmad Edi Subianto, Eri Satria

Pamungkas and Yunita Ramadhani. Theinauguration was based on the Decision of


Court No. 097/Kep/Set/MK/2011.

The event was held in the Hall on the

Ground Floor of the Constitutional Court

Building, was attended by Vice Chief Justice

of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki,


Court Janedjri M. Gaffar, and the Registrar

of Constitutional Court Kasianur Sidauruk,

as well as by the structural staff of

the Constitutional Court. In his speech,

Sodiki said that the increased number

of Substitute Registrars possessed by the

Constitutional Court was expected to assist

the constitutional justices in resolving cases

in the hearings in a transparent and

accountable manner.

The new Substitute Registrars were alsoexpected to uphold the mandate given to

them and to be able to work as properly

as possible. Since it is the benchmark of

the Constitutional Court’s success in the

future, the obligation of the Constitutional

Court to remain clean is the responsibility

of all parties in the Constitutional Court.

Sodiki also considered that to remind each

other, and to be honest, as well as to

be open may prevent any evil intention to

‘contaminate’ the Constitutional Court.

Foto

The ConstitutionalCourt inaugurated 3Substitute Registrarswithin the purview of theRegistrar’s Of ce of theConstitutional Court onFriday (29/7).








AKUNTABILITASKEUANGAN





Pancasila Education



FINANCIAL

ACCOUNTABILITY

UNQUALIFIED OPINION

The Constitutional Court won once again

won the Unqualified Opinion (WTP) for

its Financial Statements of 2010 by the

Audit Board (BPK). The unqualified opinion

(WTP) was given on Friday (24/6) in the

Audit Board (BPK) building in the event of

Submission of Audit Result Report (LHP) in

the Auditorate of State Finance III upon the

Financial Statements of 2010.

For the Constitutional Court, the achievement

of Unqualified Opinion was for the fifth time.

Previously the Constitutional Court had been

given Unqualified Opinions in 2006, 2007,

2008, and 2009 for its financial reports

and management which were transparent,

accountable, through the assessment of

professional auditors and independent team of

the Audit Board. This opinion was obtained

for the role of all ranks and files of the


of the Constitutional Court as well as all

employees of the Constitutional Court.

Secretary General of the Constitutional Court

Janedjri M Gaffar personally received the

award from the Audit Board. In this event,

the Audit Board itself delivered Audit Result

Reports on 32 Financial Statements Year 2010

consisting of financial statements of 6 state

institutions including the Constitutional Court,

11 state ministries, and 15 non-ministerial

institutions.

The Audit Result Reports were delivered the

Chairman of the Audit Board Hadi Purnomo

accompanied by the Members of the III State

Audit Board, witnessed by the audience

and other officials of the Audit Board and

the officials of state institutions, ministries

and non-ministerial institutions that received

the Audit Result Reports. The Audit Result

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Foto

Secretary Generalof the ConstitutionalCourt Janedjri M Gaffarreceived an award fromthe Audit Board (24/6).


Court/Ganie







Reports on Financial Statements of the

Ministries/Agencies were part of the AuditResult Reports on the Central Government

Financial Statements (LKPP) in 2010 which

were submitted to the People’s Legislative

Assembly on May 31, 2011 and to the

President on June 1, 2011.

Audit Result Reports on 32 Financial

Statements of the Ministries/Agencies in 2010

consisted of Audit Result Reports that included

opinions on the fairness of the financial

statements, Audit Result Reports on InternalControl System (SPI) and Audit Result Reports

on Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The

Audit Board’s Opinions on the 32 Financial

Statements included 22 Unqualified Opinions

(WTP) and 10 Qualified Opinions (WDP). The

declaration of the commitment to maintain

the Unqualified Opinion on the Financial

Statements of the Constitutional Court was

guided by the Secretary General of the

Constitutional Court simultaneously with the

signing of the Memorandum of Understanding

between the Constitutional Court and the

Corruption Eradication Commission on theestablishment of Illegal Payment Control Unit

(Unit Pengendalian Gratifikasi or UPG) and

audit couching with the Audit Board.

Best Financial Statements

In addition to being awarded with Unqualified

Opinion for the fifth time, the Constitutional

Court was also awarded the Highest

Achievement Standards in the Accounting

and Financial Reports of the GovernmentYear 2011 by the Ministry of Finance. The

award was symbolically presented by the Vice

President Budiono at the opening of the

National Accounting and Financial Reporting

Working Meeting of the Government Year 2011,

(19/9) at Dhanapala Building, Jakarta.

At the event, the Constitutional Court was

represented by the Secretary-General of the

Constitutional Court Jenedjri M. Gaffar. In

addition to the Constitutional Court, awards

Secretary General ofthe Constitutional CourtJanedjri M Gaffar at theConferment of the Best

Financial Statements fromthe Ministry of Financein Dhanapala Building,

(19/9).


Court/Ganie





Pancasila Education



FINANCIAL

ACCOUNTABILITY

were also given to 53 Ministries and

Institutions as well as 32 Local Governments

that had implemented the best financial

reports in 2010 with Unqualified Opinion

predicate. The Best Financial Statement award

presentation was held under the theme

“Improvement of the Performance of the

Government’s Financial Management in the

Context of Realizing Quality Accountability

Report of the Government’s Finances”.

The award was received by the Constitutional

Court because this guardian of the constitution

state institution was considered capable in

implementing quality improvement of its

financial management based on the principles

of good governance. In addition, the financial

statements of the Constitutional Court were

also considered to have been managed in an

orderly manner, in compliance with the rules

of the legislation, in an efficient, economic,effective, transparent, and accountable

manner.

To show the existence of institutional

commitment as well as the importance of

the awareness of good and target-effective

management of the state budget, Chief

Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Moh

Mahfud MD and Vice Chief Justice of the

Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki also took

time to attend the delivery of speech on

the Financial Memorandum and the Draft of

the State Revenues and Expenditures Budget

(RAPBN) 2012 by President Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono at the plenary meeting of the


of Indonesia attended jointly by members of

the People’s Legislative Assembly and the

Regional Representative Council in the People’s

Consultative Assembly/People’s Legislative

Assembly/Regional Representative Council

Building, Jakarta, Tuesday (16/8). Besides the

Members of the People’s Legislative Assembly

and the Regional Representative Council, the

event was also attended by Vice President

Boediono, heads of state institutions, and

ambassadors of friendly countries.

Realization of Budget 2011

In fiscal year 2011, the Constitutional

Court received a budget allocation ofRp287,996,206,000.- (two hundred eighty seven

billion nine hundred and ninety-six million

two hundred and six thousand rupiah). Up

to December 31, 2011, Rp237,476,521,448.-

(two hundred thirty-seven billion four hundred

seventy-six million five hundred twenty-one

thousand four hundred and forty-eight rupiah)

or 82.46% of the budget allocation could be

realized. The remaining budget was Rp

50,519,684,552.- (fifty billion five hundrednineteen million six hundred eighty-four

thousand five hundred and fifty two

rupiah).

There were two important aspects that affected

the absorption level of the Constitutional

Court’s budget throughout 2011. First, the

construction of the Building of the Center for

Pancasila and Constitution Education could

not be implemented in fiscal year 2011.

This occurred because of the provision that

for all physical constructions, the clearance

should be done by three institutions, namely

the Ministry of Administrative Reforms, BPKP,

and the Ministry of Public Works. Meanwhile,

the clearance result was not received until

October 2011, so it was impossible to

carry out the construction process in three

months.

Secondly, the Constitutional Court made saving

efforts. The savings of the Constitutional







Court’s budget included saving of the cost

power and services, building maintenance

service, office equipment maintenance, and

overseas travel expenses. Savings were made

to realize effective and efficient use of the

state budget.

In general, the Constitutional Court’s budget

was realized to support the implementation

of the Constitutional Court’s authoritysuch as the handling of Cases of Dispute


Regional Head, development of constitutional

awareness, implementation of good governance,

management of human resources of

apparatuses, improvement of facilities

and infrastructure of state apparatuses,

increasing awareness of law and human

rights, improvement of the performance of

judicial institutions and other law enforcement

institutions, enforcement of law and human

rights, and improvement of the quality of

the legal profession.

Larely, the realization of such budget was

manifested in four programs, namely: Program

of Management Support and Implementation

of Technical Duties, Program for Improving

the Facilities and Infrastructure of the StateApparatuses of the Constitutional Court of the

Republic of Indonesia, Program for Handling

Constitutional Cases and Constitutional

Awareness Program.

Details of budget realization per program/

activity are presented in the following

table.

Table 21Details of budget realization per program/activity

1 Program of ManagementSupport andImplementa on ofTechnical Du es

115,600,000,000 109,777,968,411 94,96 5,822,031,589

2 Program for ImprovingFacili es andInfrastructure of State

Apparatuses of theCons tu onal Court ofthe Republic of Indonesia

70,296,206,000 25,930,942,188 36,89 44,365,263,812

3 Program for HandlingCons tu onal Cases

55,000,000,000 54,931,159,697 99,87 68,840,303

4 Cons tu onal AwarenessProgram

47,100,000,000 46,836,451,152 99,44 263,548,848

Total 287,996,206,000 237,476,521,448 82,46 50,519,684,552

No Program Budget (Rp) Realizaton(Rp)Realiza-ton (%)

Remainder ofBudget (Rp)





Pancasila Education


FinancialAccountability ClosingCLOSING

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA







Closing





Pancasila Education


FinancialAccountability ClosingCLOSING

T his Annual Report is an overview andmanifestation of the performance of theConstitutional Court throughout 2011

in the efforts to establish a constitutionaldemocratic state and to provide best servicesto justice-seekers and the general public. As

an independent actor of judicial power, thegait of the Constitutional is vitally importantamidst the problems of the nation and thestate which require the settlement throughthe role of state institutions and all broadelements of society.

Throughout the year, the Constitutional Courthas been making its best efforts to lead as amodern and credible institution. In performingits constitutional role in resolving cases andresolving cases of Judicial Review of Laws and

Disputes over the Results of General Election ofRegional Head (PHPD), the Constitutional Courthas positioned itself as the counterweight andcontroller of power to be within the corridorsof the Constitution and the law as well as tokeep democracy going with clear direction andpurpose with the Constitutional Court beingbased on democratic principles in decidingupon cases with an emphasis on substantive

justice and electoral justice and not merelyimposing constitutional sanctions. Not onlystrengthening constitutional democracy, the

Constitutional Court also continues to build its

integrity in the decreasing public upon judicialinstitutions and makes every effort in order toestablish the constitutionality of Indonesia anda culture of constitutional awareness.

Proper performance of the authority andobligations of the Constitutional Court cannotbe separated from the role and contributionof the nine constitutional court justices. TheSecretariat General and the Registrar’s Officeof the Constitutional Court also give fullsupport to the constitutional court justices fortheir constitutional duties to be performed inaccordance with the expectations of societyand to create justice. All that have been doneshow the results, with the Constitutional Courtreceiving broad support from all segments ofthe society, merely in the interests of society

and justice seekers as the main foundation ofservices provided by always preparing itselfand receiving inputs from the public.

The Constitutional Court’s success wouldbe meaningless without the support of thepeople and other institutions in an integratedsystem for the grand purpose of realizing aconstitutional democratic state. Hopefully thetrack records of the Constitutional Court inthe Annual Report of the Constitutional Court

year 2011 can be used as information to the

public and may bring better changes in thefuture.







APPENDICES





Pancasila Education



Appendices

List of the Constitutional Court’s Decisions on Judicial Review(Throughout 2011)

Granted

Case Number Pe oners Substance of the Case Date of Decision

2/PUU-IX/2011 1. Deni Juhaeni2. I Griawan Wijaya3. Ne y Re a Herawaty

Hutabarat 4. BagusPutus Mantra

Judicial Review of LawNumber 18 Year 2009concerning Livestockand Animal Health

October 6, 2011

5/PUU-IX/2011 Feri Amsari, S.H., M.H.,dkk

Indonesia Corrup onWatch

Judicial Review ofLaw Number 30 Year2002 concerningCommission for theEradica on of CriminalActs of Corrup on

June 20, 2011

15/PUU-IX/2011 18 Small Poli cal Par es Judicial Review ofLaw Number 2 Year

2011 concerningAmendment to LawNumber 2 Year 2008concerning Poli calPar es.

July 4, 2011

17/PUU-IX/2011 Iwan Kurniawan, S.H 1. Judicial Reviewof Law Number5 year 1986 asamended byLaw Number 9year 2004 andas re-amended

by Law Number51 year 2009concerning StateAdministra onCourt

2. Law Number8 Year 1981concerningCriminal Code

September 29,2011







29/PUU-IX/2011 Komarudin WatubunTanawani Mora, S.H., M.H

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 35 Year2008 concerningthe S pula onof GovernmentRegula on in lieu ofLaw Number 1 Year2008 concerningAmendment to LawNumber 21 Year 2001concerning SpecialAutonomy for PapuaProvince to BecomeLaw

September 29,2011

35/PUU-IX/2011 1. Dana Iswara Basri;2. Fikri Jufri;3. M. Husni Thamrin;4. Budi Arie Se adi;5. Susi Rizky Wiyan ni.,

dkk

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 2 Year2011 concerningAmendment to LawNumber 2 Year 2008

concerning Poli calPar es under the1945 Cons tu on.

August 4, 2011

37/PUU-IX/2011 1. drg. Ugan Gandar;2. Ir. Eko Wahyu.3. Ir. Rommel Antonius

Gin ng

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 13 Year 2003concerning Manpowerunder the 1945Cons tu on.

September 19,2011

48/PUU-IX/2011 Drs. Dj. Siahaan, S.H., andIr. Husni Husin, M.S

Pe on for JudicialReview of Law

Number 8 Year2011 concerningAmendment to LawNumber 24 Year2003 concerning theCons tu onal Court,and Law Number 35Year 2009 concerningNarco cs under the1945 Cons tu on.

October 18,2011





Pancasila Education



49/PUU-IX/2011 1. Prof. Dr. Saldi Isra, S.H;2. Prof. Dr. Yuliandri, S.H.,

M.H;3. Prof. Dr. Arief Hidayat,

S.H., M.H

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 8 Year2011 concerningAmendment to LawNumber 24 Year2003 concerning theCons tu onal Court,under the 1945Cons tu on.

October 18,2011

Rejected

1/PUU-IX/2011 H. Alias Wello, Sip Judicial Review of theCriminal Code.

July 25, 2011

3/PUU-IX/2011 People’s SovereigntyCommi ee or KomiteKadaulatan Rakyat,represented by: R.Hamdani, CH and AnisahAmbaryani

Judicial Review of LawNumber 31 Year 1999concerning Eradica onof Criminal Acts ofCorrup on

October 6, 2011

7/PUU-IX/2011 Widodo Edy Budianto Judicial Review of LawNumber 11 Year 1969concerning EmployeeRe rement and Widow/Widower EmployeesRe rement

February 28,2011

8/PUU-IX/2011 1. Mudho r2. Parulian Sianturi, S.H3. dward P. Marpaung., cs

Judicial Review of LawNumber 3 Year 1992concerning ManpowerSocial Security

December 23,2011

9/PUU-IX/2011 1. Moh. Riyadi Setyarto;2. Rasma A.W

Judicial Review of LawNumber 34 Year 2004concerning IndonesianNa onal Armed Forces

May 4, 2011

11/PUU-IX/2011 Linneke SyennieWatoelangkoew, S.Si.and Ir. Jimmy StefanusWewengkang, MBA

Judicial Review of LawNumber 32 Year 2004concerning RegionalGovernment

July 18, 2011








21/PUU-IX/2011 Anthon Melkianus Natun,S.T

Pe on for JudicialReview of Law Number27 Year 2009 concerningthe People's Consulta veAssembly, the People'sLegisla ve Assembly,Regional Representa ves'Council and the RegionalPeople's Legisla veAssembly

July 28, 2011

26/PUU-IX/2011 PT. Yala TeknoGeothermal, representedby Ir. Febrimansyah Lubis

Pe on for JudicialReview of Law Number37 Year 2004 concerningBankruptcy andPostponement of DebtSe lement Obliga on

September 19,2011

32/PUU-IX/2011 1. Muhammad Suryani, S.E;2. Sani Abdullah;3. Husien Djunaidi;4. Hj. Badriah

Pe on for JudicialReview of Law Number25 Year 1992 concerningCoopera ves under the1945 Cons tu on

July 28, 2011

41/PUU-IX/2011 Habel Rumbiak, S.H., SpN Pe on for JudicialReview of Law Number21 Year 2001 concerningSpecial Autonomy forPapua Province underthe 1945 Cons tu on

October 13,2011

60/PUU-IX/2011 Indonesia Human RightsCommi ee for SocialJus ce (IHCS), PrakarsaMasyarakat Untuk Negara

Kesejahteraan danPembagunan Alterna f(PRAKARSA)., etc.

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 11 Year 2011concerning Amendment

to Law Number 10Year 2010 concerningState Revenues andExpenditures Budget Year2011 under the 1945Cons tu on.

December 28,2011





Pancasila Education




4/PUU-IX/2011 1. Pdt. Tjahjadi Nugroho;2. Aryanto Nugroho, S.E.,

M.M

Judicial Review ofthe Civil Code, andJudicial Review of LawNumber 4 Year 2004concerning JudicialPower

July 25, 2011

6/PUU-IX/2011 M. Sholihin. IF Judicial Review of LawNumber 12 Year 2010concerning Scou ngMovement

March 4, 2011

10/PUU-IX/2011 Liem Marita alias Aling 1. Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 48 Year2009 concerningJudicial Power,

2. Law Number 14Year 1985 juncto Law Number 5

Year 2004 juncto Law Number3 Year 2009concerning theSupreme Court,

3. Law Number8 Year 1981concerningCriminal ProcedureLaw under the1945 Cons tu on

April 15, 2011

18/PUU-IX/2011 Drs. H. Choirul Anam andTohadi, S.H., M.Si

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 2 Year2011 concerningAmendment to LawNumber 2 Year 2008concerning Poli calPar es

July 4, 2011

Cannot be Accepted







20/PUU-IX/2011 A. Fince Sondakh Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 5 Year1960 concerningBasic Regula ons onAgrarian Principles,Judicial Reviewof GovernmentRegula on Number 40Year 1996 and JudicialReview of GovernmentRegula on Number 24Year 1997

February 28, 2011

22/PUU-IX/2011 Fachri Alamudie Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 20 Year2000 concerningAmendment to LawNumber 21 Year 1997concerning Duty forthe Acquisi on ofRights to Land andBuildings

April 26, 2011

23/PUU-IX/2011 Hagus Suanto Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 13 Year 1985concerning StampDuty

July 28, 2011

24/PUU-IX/2011 Bibit Pe on for JudicialReview of the Decisionof the SupremeCourt Number 301 K/Pdt/2004

March 11, 2011

25/PUU-IX/2011 1. Hasanuddin Shahib;2. Kusnendar Atmosukarto;3. Suharto, S.H

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 11 Year1969 concerningEmployee Re rementand Widow/WidowerEmployee Re rement

October 13, 2011

30/PUU-IX/2011 Suryani Judicial Review ofLaw No.7 Year 1989concerning ReligiousCourt under the 1945Cons tu on

June 27, 2011







69/PUU-IX/2011 dr. Salim Alka ri Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 8 Year 2011concerningAmendment to LawNumber 24 Year 2003concerning theCons tu onal Courtunder the 1945Cons tu on.

December 21,2011

Withdrawn


12/PUU-IX/2011 Barnabas Suebu, S.H Judicial Review of LawNumber 21 Year 2001concerning SpecialAutonomy for PapuaProvince

March 11, 2011

13/PUU-IX/2011 Idrus Nawawi and

Haimingsi Hapari

Judicial Review of Law

Number 21 Year 2000concerning Workers’Union/ Labor Union

March 11, 2011

31/PUU-IX/2011 Harry Mulyono Machsus,S.H., M.Hum

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 28 Year 2009concerning RegionalTaxes and Retribu onsunder the 1945Cons tu on

June 20, 2011

42/PUU-IX/2011 Suhardi Somomoelyono,S.H., M.H

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 24 Year2003 concerning theCons tu onal Courtunder the 1945Cons tu on.

September 19,2011

62/PUU-IX/2011 1. Dr. Andi MuhammadAsrun, S.H., M.H;

2. Dorel Almir, S.H., M.Kn;3. Merlina, S.H

Pe on for JudicialReview of Law of theRepublic of IndonesiaNumber 2 Year2002 concerning theNa onal Police of theRepublic of Indonesiaunder the 1945Cons tu on.

November 10,2011





Pancasila Education




72/PUU-IX/2011 Sin Sikku, S.H Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 27 Year2009 concerning thePeople's Consulta veAssembly, the People'sLegisla ve Assembly,the RegionalRepresenta vesCouncil and RegionalPeople's Legisla veAssembly under the1945 Cons tu on.

December 13,2011

76/PUU-IX/2011 Sulas o and other 55Pe oners

Pe on for JudicialReview of LawNumber 15 Year 2011concerning GeneralElec on Organizer,under the 1945Cons tu on.

November 21,2011

List of the Constitutional Court’s Decisions on Disputes over theResults of General Election of Regional Head

(Throughout 2011)

Granted

10/PHPU.D-IX/2011 DR. H. Dadang Su anto,Drs., M.M. and RK. DadanSuryanegara, S.P

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head and

Vice Regional Headof Cianjur Regency ofWest Java Province.

February 16,2011

12/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. Drs. H. Hidayat Atori,M.Si. and Drs. U.Suherlan

2. Djaenudin, S.H., M.MDR. H. MaskanaSumitra, S.H., M.Si. andDrs. H. Ade Sanoesi

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Cianjur Regency ofWest Java Province

February 16,2011







31/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Albiner Sitompul and dr.Steven P.B. Simanungkalit

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Central TapanuliRegency of NorthSumatera Province(candidate)

April 11, 2011

32/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Dina Riana Samosir andDrs. Hikmal Batubara

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Central TapanuliRegency of NorthSumatera Province

April 11, 2011

33/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. Sukandar, S.Kom., M.Si.and Hamdi, S.Sos., M.M


Vice Regional Head ofTebo Regency of JambiProvince

April 14, 2011

59/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Rusli Sibua, M.Si. andWeni Ritho Paraisu

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Morotai IslandRegency of NorthMaluku Province,

June 20, 2011

63/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Dra. Hj. Sep na Primawa ,M.M. and H. Erizal Muluk

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of PekanbaruMunicipality of RiauProvince

June 24, 2011

82/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. Imam Suroso, M.M. andSujoko, S.Pd., M.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Pa Regency ofCentral Java Province.

August 22,2011





Pancasila Education



84/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Dr. Wahidin Puarada,M .Si. and Ir. HermanDonatus Pelix OrisoeDrs. DominggusMandacan.and Origenes Nauw, S.PdGeorge Celcius Auparay,S.H., M.M., M.H. andHassan Ombaier, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofWest PapuaProvince

August 23,2011

91/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. La Uku, S.H. and Dani,B.Sc

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Buton Regency ofSouth-East SulawesiProvince

September 21,2011

92/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Samsu Umar AbdulSamiun, S.H. and Drs. LaBakry, M.Si


Vice Regional Headof Buton Regency ofSouth-East SulawesiProvince

September 21,2011

108/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Ir. H. T.A. Khalid. M.M,Fadhlullah

Pe on of Disputeover General Elec onResults of the RegionalHead as Candidates ofGovernor of Aceh andPidie Regency

November 2,2011

120/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Kristosimus YohanesAgawemu and Mar nusGuntur Ohoiwutun

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofGorontalo Province

December 19,2011

124/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Drs. Dharma Oratmangun,M.Si. and JosepusKulalean, S.Sos,Lukas Uwuratuw andJunusFredrik Batlajery, S.H.,Dr. Paulus Koritelu,

S.Sos. and TimotheusFutwembun, S.Sos

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof South-East WestMaluku Regency of

Maluku Province

December 23,2011








1/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. Zulhelmi, S.H.,M.M. and Ir. Novizon, M.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof North BengkuluRegency of BengkuluProvince

January 20, 2011

2/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. Zulhelmi, S.H.,M.M. and Ir. Novizon, M.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofKaro Regency of NorthSumatera Province

January 20, 2011

3/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. I Gede Ngurah PatrianaKrisna, S.T., M.T. and IKetut Subanda, S.Sos.

2. I Gede Made

Kar kajaya, S.E., M.M.,M.AP. and I GusNgurah Cipta Negara,S.H

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofJembrana Regency ofBali Province

January 26, 2011

5/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Faudu’asa Hulu and Ir.Alfred Laia

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSouth Nias Regencyof North Sumatera

Province

February 2, 2011

125/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Isai Wuri mur, S.H., M.H.and Lukas Angwarmase,BCKN

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of South-East West MalukuRegency of MalukuProvince (prospec vecandidates)

December 23,2011

Ditolak





Pancasila Education



7/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Temazisokhi Halawaand Pdt. Foluaha BidayaM.Div

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSouth Nias Regencyof North SumateraProvince

February 2, 2011

8/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. dr. H. Amir Hakim H.Siregar., SpOG. and DR.H. Syamsul Bahrum,PhD.

2. Ir. Ria Saptarika,M.Eng.,

3. Nada F. Soraya andNuryanto, S.H

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofBatam Municipality ofRiau Islands Province

February 2, 2011

13/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Y.S. Dalipang and Drg.Simon Liling

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofNorth Toraja Regencyof South SulawesiProvince

February 16, 2011

15/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. H. E. Hidayat, S.H.,M.H. and Drs. H. AsepA. Djaelani, M.M.

2. H.R. Harmaen MuchyiWiratanuningrat andDrs. H. Tachman IdingHusein

3. H. Endang Hidayat, S.H.

and Akhmad JuhanaM., M.Pd.4. H. Subarna, S.E.,

M.Si. and Hj. Dede T.Widarsih

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofTasikmalaya Regencyof West Java Province

February 16, 2011

16/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ny. Sri Sumarni, S.H. andH. Pirman, Spd., M.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofGrobogan Regency ofCentral Java Province

February 21, 2011







17/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Bambang Budisatyo, S.H.,M.M. and Edy Mulyanto,S.Si.T

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofGrobogan Regency ofCentral Java Province

February 21, 2011

19/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. Abock Busup, S.Th.,M.A. and Isak Salak,

A.Md., P.d2. Didimus Yahuli, S.H.

and Welhelmus Lokon,AMs., P.d

Pe on of Disputeover the Results of

General Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Yahukimo Regency,Papua Province.

March 3, 2011

20/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ir. Rama Alexander Asiaand H. Abdul Azizs, S.E.,M.M

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofWest Kutai Regency,East KalimantanProvince,

March 3, 2011

21/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Faduhusi Daeli, S.Pd. andIr. Sinar Abdi Gulo, S.E.,AI., M.Si

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofWest Nias Regency,North SumateraProvince.

March 10, 2011

24/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. Muhammad Juber,S.Ag., and Ir. H. Isroni


General Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of East TanjungJabung Regency, JambiProvince.

March 16, 2011

25/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ir. Arnolis Laipeny and Drs.Simon Moshe Maahury

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSouth-West Maluku

Regency, MalukuProvince.

March 16, 2011





Pancasila Education



26/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. Raja Amirullah,Apt., and Daeng Amhar,S.E., M.M

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofNatuna Regency, RiauIslands Province

March 24, 2011

27/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. Suparman, S.Sos., M.Si.,and H. Hamulian, SP


General Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofRokan Hulu Regency,Riau Province.

March 24, 2011

28/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. Abdul Anas Badrunand Nasrum

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofPelalawan Regency,Riau Province.

March 31, 2011

29/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Asmin Laura Ha d, S.E.and Karel

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofNunukan Regency, EastKalimantan Province

March 31, 2011

30/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Hj. Sa idah, M.A. and Drs.H. Haryanto, M.M., Ir. H.Moch. Nadjib YN, M.Si.and Hj. Si Azzah, S.Sos


Vice Regional Headof Demak Regency,Central Java Province

April 11, 2011

34/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Julianus Mnusefer, S.Si.,Th., MAP. and TheodorusKawer, S.IP., M.Si

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Supiori Regency ofPapua Province

April 34, 2011







35/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Albert Tuliahanuk, S.Pd.,M.M. and Yorim EndarmaS.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Yalimo Regency ofPapua Province

April 20, 2011

36/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Kol. Laut (Purn) Drs. H.Joharman Ma`in Saleh andDrs. H. Anhar Basaruddin

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Kaur Regency ofBengkulu Province Year2011

April 26, 2011

37/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Aditya Anugrah Moha,S.Ked. and Ir. NormaMakalalag

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofBolaang MongondowRegency of NorthSulawesi Province

April 28, 2011

40/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. Drs. Aslaman Sadik andAndi Hasan, S.Pd.,

2. dr. H. LD. Sudil Baenu,M.M., M.K e s. andHalimudin Adam.,

3. Ediarto Rusmin, Bae,S.Sos. and Drs. H. LaOde Hasimin

4. H. Laode Bawangi,S.E. and H. La OdeBahasani, S.H.,

5. Prof. DR. H. La OnuLa Ola, S.E., M.S. andDrs. Ec. H. La Ode BoaSardiman, Bc., Kn.,M.Si

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Wakatobi RegencySouth-East SulawesiProvince

Mei 4, 2011





Pancasila Education



41/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Faigi`asa Bawamenewi,S.H. and Ronal Zai

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofNias Regency of NorthSumatera Province

May 10, 2011

42/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Damili R. Gea, S.H. andAluizaro Telaumbanua,A.Ma.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofNias Regency of NorthSumatera Province

May 10, 2011

43/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. Ok. Fauzi Jamil andTengku Muhazza

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSiak Regency of RiauProvince

May 10, 2011

44/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. Said Muhammad, S.H.and Rusdaryanto

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSiak Regency of RiauProvince

May 10, 2011

45/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. Ma`mun Amir andIr. H. Muh. Faizal Mang,M.M


Vice Regional Headof Banggai Regencyof Central SulawesiProvince

May 11, 2011

46/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Herman Sani, S.H.,M.Si. and Ir. WahyudiPurwowasirto

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofRokan Hilir Regency ofRiau Province

May 11, 2011







47/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Ahmadi Zubir, M.M.and Mushar Azhari, S.Pd.,Dpt

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of Sungai PenuhMunicipality of JambiProvince

May 11, 2011

48/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Kamaludin Havis, S.Ag.and Rizal Lubis Hj.Masnah Busro, S.E. andDrs. Ahmad Ari n Drs.Asnawi AB, M.M. and H.Idi Irwansyah Drs. R. AzisMuslim and Irwansyah,S.H, Drs. H. MuchtarMuis, M.M. and RatumasJuariah

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofMuaro Jambi Regencyof Jambi Province

May 23, 2011

49/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. Musrini, M.Si. andGumpita, Sp., M.Si

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Kuantan SingingiRegency of RiauProvince

May 23, 2011

51/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Anthonius Lesnussa,M.M. and Drs. H. Hadji Ali

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSouth Buru Regency ofMaluku Province,

May 23, 2011

52/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. Indra Porkas Lubis, M.Aand H. Firdaus Nasu on

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Mandailing NatalRegency of NorthSumatera Province

May 27, 2011





Pancasila Education



53/PHPU.D-IX/2011 As`ad Isma, M.Pd. andDrs. H. Maryadi Syarif,M.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSarolangun Regency ofJambi Province

June 6, 2011

54/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ir. Suriawan Prihandi, MP.and H. Syarkawi HartaTahan

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSouth Barito Regencyof Central KalimantanProvince

June 13, 2011

55/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ir. H. Diah Sunarsasi andMilhous Teddy Sulistyo,S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSala ga Municipality ofCentral Java Province

June 13, 2011

56/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Muh. Subhan Tambera,S.E., M.Si. and Drs. H.Abdul Azis Baking

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofBombana Regency ofSouth-East SulawesiProvince

June 15, 2011

57/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ari n Nurdin, S.E., M.S.Ak.and Muhammad Rizal

Muchtar, S.Sos., M.M


General Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Majene Regencyof West SulawesiProvince

June 20, 2011

58/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. M. Rizal Sirajuddin,M.Si. and Drs. H. M. RusbiHamid, M.Si., H. AchmadSyukri, S.E., M.M. andSyahariah, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Majene Regency

of West SulawesiProvince

June 20, 2011







60/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Anghany Tanjung, S.E. andHi. Arsyad Haya, A.Ma

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Morotai IslandRegency of NorthMaluku Province,

June 20, 2011

62/PHPU.D-IX/2011 La Kadir, S.H., M.H. and

Souhaly Roberth, S.H.,M.H

Pe on of Dispute

over the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofWest Seram Regencyof Maluku Province

June 21, 2011

68/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. Daniel Palapia, S.H.and La Suriadi.,

2. Drs. Ferry Wa mury,M.Si. and Hi. AwathTernate.,

3. Dr. Ny. Hesina J.

Huliselan/T, M.Kes. andMachfud Walilulu, S.E

4. Drs. Paulus Kastanya,M.Si. and Drs. LaHamsidi

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofAmbon Municipality of

Maluku Province.

June 28, 2011

69/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Hendrik Worumi, S.Sos.,M.Si. and Pene I Kogoya,S.Pd., M.M

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofJayapura Municipalityof Papua Province

June 30, 2011

71/PHPU.D-IX/2011 1. A b i s a i R o l l o a n dReyneilda M. Kaisepo,S.Si., M.Th

2. Dr. Musa Yan Jouwe,S.H., M.Si. and Ir. H.Rustan Saru, M.M.,

3. Drs. Jan Hendrik Hamadiand Drs. Lievelien L.Ansanay Monim.,

4. Thobias Solossa, S.H.,M.M. and Haryanto S.H.,Pdt. Frederick Hendrick

Toam, S.Th. and Ir. JimmySpenyel Ansanay, M.M


June 30, 2011





Pancasila Education



72/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Simon Hayon and Drs.Fransiskus Diaz Al , M.M

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofEast Flores Regencyof East Nusa TenggaraProvince

July 7

73/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Felix Fernandez, S.H., C.N.

and M. Ismail Arkiang,S.H., M.H

Pe on of Dispute

over the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofEast Flores Regencyof East Nusa TenggaraProvince

July 7

75/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Alpius Lokbere andDinard Kelnea, S.Sos

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head

of Nduga Regency ofPapua Province

July 7, 2011

76/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Edison Nggwijanggeand Aliaser Tabuni, Sm.,Th

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Nduga Regency ofPapua Province

July 7, 2011

77/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Syahdan Anggoi, S.Sos.and Honorius Bruno, S.KM


General Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Landak Regencyof West KalimantanProvince.

July 15, 2011

78/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Suprapta and Drs.H. So`im, M.M Drs. H.Mulyono and AhmadSumiyanto, S.E., M.Si

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofKulon Progo Regency

of Special Territory ofYogyakarta Province,

July 25, 2011







79/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Irianto Malinglong andEhud Salamat

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Banggai IslandsRegency of CentralSulawesi Province.

August 9, 2011

83/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Budhi Sarwono and

Kusuma Winahyu Diah,A.T

Pe on of Dispute

over the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Banjarnegara ofCentral Java Province

August 23, 2011

85/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Briur Wenda, S.Pd. andSolayen Murib Tabuni, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofLanny Jaya Regency of

Papua Province

August 23, 2011

86/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Nius Kogoya, S.Th. andTerry Wanena, S.Pd., M.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofLanny Jaya Regency ofPapua Province

August 23, 2011

87/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Wiklif Wakerkwa, S.Sos.and Adolof Kogoya, S.E,Doren Wakerkwa, S.H. andMoury Kogoya, M.Th

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofLanny Jaya Regency ofPapua Province

August 23, 2011

89/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Manase Paa, M.Si.and Paskalis Baru, S.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofTambrauw Regency ofWest Papua Province,

September 21,2011







101/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Hj. Ririn Kuswantari, S.Sos.and Subhan Efendi, S.H

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofPringsewu Regency ofLampung Province

October 28, 2011

102/PHPU.D-IX/2011

1. Hi. Syaifullah Sesunan,S.H., M.H. and dr. Hi.

Edi Winarso2. DR. (Cand) Frans Agung

Mula Putra, S.Sos.,M.H. and Hi. SyamsulHadi,

3. Hi. Putra Jaya Umarand Subroto, S.Pd


General Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofWest Tulang BawangRegency of LampungProvince

October 28, 2011

103/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Ir. H. Iskandar Maliki,M.M., M.H. and AgusSe o, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head

of Mesuji Regency ofLampung Province

November 1, 2011

105/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Korneles Melky Daufera,S.T. and Adrian Roy Senis,Amd.Tek.,

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Sarmi Regency ofPapua Province

November 1, 2011

106/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Berthus Kyeu-Kyeu,B.A., M.PA. and Isak S.

Wersemetawar, S.Kom


General Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Sarmi Regency ofPapua Province

November 1, 2011

109/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Hardiman, S.Ag., M.Si. andIndra Putra, S.Sos.I., M.Sc

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of KamparRegency of Riau

Province (Prospec veCandidates)

November 10,2011





Pancasila Education



110/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Drs. Muhammad Ali Baal,M.Si. and Drs. H. TashanBurhanuddin, M.S

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of West SulawesiProvince

November 10,2011

111/PHPU.DIX/2011 Salim S. Mengga andAbdul Jawas Gani, S.H.,M.H

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of West SulawesiProvince

November 10,2011

112/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Antonius and Melki Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Mentawai IslandsRegency of WestSumatera Province

November 10,2011

113/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Ir. H. Bakir Lumbessy,M.BA. and Hj. Etha AisyaHen hu

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Buru Regency ofMaluku Province

November 21,2011

114/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Drs. H. Wahidin Halim,M.Si. and Hj. Irna Narulita,S.E., M.M

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofBanten Province

November 22,2011

118/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Drs. Aminadab Jumameand Marinus Kwamtakai,S.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Mappi Regency ofPapua Province

December 13,2011







119/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Drs. Dominggus Mandacanand Origenes Nauw, S.Pd,DR. Wahidin Puarada,M.Si. and Ir. HermanDonatus Pelix Orisoe,George Celcius Auparay,S.H., M.M., M.H. andHassan Ombaier, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofWest Papua Province

December 19,2011

122/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Ir. Laode Haimuddin, M.M.and Nizam Dai, S.IPem

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofBoalemo Regency ofGorontalo Province

December 21,2011

Cannot be Accepted


4/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Fahuwusa laia, S.H., M.H.

and Rahmat AlyakinDakhi, S.KM., M.Kes

Pe on of Dispute

over the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSouth Nias Regencyof North SumateraProvince (Prospec veCandidates)

February 2, 2011

6/PHPU.D-IX/2011 DR. (HC) Hadirat Manao,S.H., M.H. and DenismanBu’ololo, S.T


Vice Regional Head ofSouth Nias Regencyof North SumateraProvince (Prospec veCandidates)

February 2, 2011

9/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Doli Boniara andMuhammad Dali

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Karimun Regencyof Riau Islands

Province (Prospec veCandidates)

February 11, 2011







38/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Suharjo D. Makalalag,M.Ed. and HasnaMokodompit

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of BolaangMongondow Regencyof North SulawesiProvince, (Prospec veCandidates)

April 28, 2011

39/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. H. M. Sudin Asrin andKurniadi, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Sambas Regencyof West KalimantanProvince

April 28, 2011

50/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Prof. (Em) Drs. H.Aminuddin Ponulele,M.S. and Dr. Hj. LucianaIs Baculu, S.E., M.M, H.Sahabuddin Mustafa andDrs. H. Faisal Mahmud H.Ahmad Yahya, S.E, M.M.and Drs. H. Moh. Ma`rufBan lan., M.M

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Central SulawesiProvince

May 23, 2011

61/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Umar Hi. Hasan, S.IP.,M.M. and Drs. W. SepnathPinoa, M.Si

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Morotai IslandRegency of NorthMaluku Province

June 20, 2011

64/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Andry Muslim, andMarbaga Tampubolon

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of PekanbaruMunicipality of RiauProvince (Prospec veCandidates)

June 16, 2011





Pancasila Education



65/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ir. Lukas Lipataman andDrs. Muhidin Ishak

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Lembata Regency,East Nusa TenggaraProvince (Prospec veCandidates)

June 27, 2011

66/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Petrus TawaLangoday, and AkhmadBumi, S.H

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Lembata Regency,East Nusa TenggaraProvince (Prospec veCandidates)

June 27, 2011

67/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Paulus Doni Ruing, S.E.and Johanis Kia Poli

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on of

the Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Lembata Regency,East Nusa TenggaraProvince (Prospec veCandidates)

June 27, 2011

70/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Yulius Mambay, S.E. andPetrus Paulus Ell, S.H


June 30, 2011

74/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Yakoba L. Lokbere, S.E.and Drs. Thomas Ameng

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Nduga Regency ofPapua Province

July 7, 2011







80/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. Harman RahmatPandipa, S.E. and Letkol(U) Drs. H. Wenny Bukamo

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Banggai IslandsRegency of CentralSulawesi Province

August 9, 2011

81/PHPU.D-IX/2011 H. M. Slamet Warsito, S.T.,M.T. M.R.E. and Dr. Hj. SriMulyani, Dra., M.M,

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Pa Regency ofCentral Java Province

August 22, 2011

90/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Petrus P. Yembra and Drs.Erick Mayor, M.Si

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofTambrauw Regency ofWest Papua Province

September 21,2011

93/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Abdul Hasan Mbou, S.Sos.and H. Buton Achmad, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Buton Regency ofSouth-East SulawesiProvince

September 19,2011

104/PHPU.D-IX/2011

1. Arif Budiman, S.KM.and Yedi Supriatna,S.H., M.H,

2. Suprapto, S.Psi., M.H.and Dahlan Dahlir, S.E

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Mesuji Regency ofLampung Province

November 1, 2011

107/PHPU.D-IX/2011

George weyasu, S.H. andNicanor Dimo, S.H

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Sarmi Regency ofPapua Province

November 1, 2011





Pancasila Education



115/PHPU.D-IX/2011

H. Jazuli Juwaini, L.C.,M.A. and Drs. MakmunMuzakki

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofBanten Province

November 22,2011

116/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Dwi Jatmiko and TjejepMulyadinata

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on of

the Regional Headand Vice RegionalHead of BantenProvince (Prospec veCandidates)

November 22,2011

117/PHPU.D-IX/2011


Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Mappi Regency ofPapua Province

December 13,2011

121/PHPU.D-IX/2011


Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofGorontalo Province

December 19,2011

123/PHPU.D-IX/2011

Haryanto and Budiyono Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Headof Pa Regency ofCentral Java Province

December 13,

2011

Re-Withdrawn


88/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Ir. Hj. War ah Thalib,M.M. and H. So ansyah,S.Pd

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head of

South Barito Regencyof Central KalimantanProvince

August 22, 2011







94/PHPU.D-IX/2011 Drs. Winsulangi Salindehoand Drs. SiegfriedTakarangkian Makagansa,M.M

Pe on of Disputeover the Results ofGeneral Elec on ofthe Regional Head andVice Regional Head ofSangihe IslandsRegency of NorthSulawesi Province

October 13, 2011

List of the Constitutional Court’s Decisions on Disputes over theAuthority of State Institutions

(Throughout 2011)

Cannot be accepted


1/SKLN-IX/2011 Government of SorongRegency

Dispute over theAuthority of StateIns tu ons betweenthe Government ofSorongRegency and theGovernment of SorongMunicipality.

June 20, 2011

2/SKLN-IX/2011 1. H. Andi Harahap,S.Sos., as Regent of North Penajam PasserRegency,

2. Nanang Ali, S.E.,as Speaker of theRegional People’sLegisla ve Assemblyof North PenajamPasser Regency, EastKalimanten Province

Dispute over theAuthority of StateIns tu ons whoseauthority is granted bythe 1945 Cons tu onbetween the Regentof North PenajamPasser Regency andthe Regional People'sLegisla ve Assemblyof North PenajamPasser Regency, EastKalimantan Provinceagainst Ministerof Forestry of theRepublic of Indonesia

September 29,2011





Pancasila Education



4/SKLN-IX/2011 Na onal Movement forthe Eradica on of CriminalActs of Corrup on orGerakan NasionalPemberantasan TindakPidana Korupsi (GN-PK)

Dispute over theAuthority of StateIns tu ons whoseauthority is grantedby the 1945Cons tu on betweenGerakan NasionalPemberantasan TindakPidana Korupsi (GN-PK), against Ministerof Religious A airsof the Republic ofIndonesia

November 24,2011

For cases of Dispute over the Authority of State Institutions, throughout 2011 the Constitutional•

Court has passed decisions upon three cases. It has been declared that all of them cannotbe accepted



The Authors Annual Report of the Constitutional Court 2011

directive: Janedjri M. Gaffar. caretaker: Budi Achmad Djohari. Coordinator: Heru Setiawan. Editors: MiftakhulHuda, Rita Triana. Scriptwriter: Miftakhul Huda, Rita Triana, Achmad Dodi Haryadi, Nur Rosihin, Lulu AnjarsariP, Nano Tresna Arfana, Yusti Nurul Agustin, Abdullah Yazid, Shohibul Umam. Design dan Layout: Nur Budiman,Teguh Birawa Putra, Syawaludin, Rudi, Herman To. Photographers: Ganie, Prana Patrayoga, Yogi Djatnika,Andhini Sayu Fauziah, Annisa Lestari, Fitri Yuliana, Ilham Muhammad, Lulu Anjarsari P, Ray Bachtiar, Fajar, Eva, Tifa.