Source: https://beta.shariasource.com/search?document_type%5B%5D=18&document_type%5B%5D=19&document_type%5B%5D=39&document_type%5B%5D=20&document_type%5B%5D=21&document_type%5B%5D=22&document_type%5B%5D=35&document_type%5B%5D=36&document_type%5B%5D=34&document_type%5B%5D=23&document_type%5B%5D=37&q=&topic%5B%5D=7
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 23:14:29
Document Index: 209648937

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 256', 'art 50', 'art 256', 'arts 18', 'art 256', 'art 43', 'art 28', 'art 256', 'arts 56', 'arts 18', 'arts 56', 'art 59']

Contemporary Primary Sources :: Constitutions :: 10 Ramaḍān 1364 / 17 August 1945
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945
Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 04 September 2015
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, in one whole manuscript, after the amendments of 2002.
Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No. 35 of 2010: Political Nomination
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 16 October 2015
The four applicants wished to nominate themselves for the then-upcoming elections of regent and deputy-regent of Pidie, Bireun, Aceh Timur, and Simeulue respectively in 2011. Article 256 of Law No. 11 of 2006 on the Governance of Aceh, however, required that individual/independent candidates in regional head elections be nominated by a political party or coalition. In other words, art 256 precluded the nomination of independent candidacy. Therefore, pursuant to art 50 of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, the applicants sought to challenge the constitutional validity of art 256 of Law No. 11 of 2006 on the grounds that it contravened arts 18(4), 27(1), 28D(1) and (3), and 28I(2) of the Indonesian Constitution. The applicants also claimed that art 256 contravened art 43 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which reiterated and elaborated upon art 28D(3) of the Constitution, in regards to every Indonesian citizen being entitled to be elected to a position of political office.
The court acceded to the application, finding art 256 of Law No. 11 of 2006 in contravention of the aforementioned constitutional guarantees and, therefore, rendered it null and void.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Legislation :: 16 Jumādā II 1424 / 13 August 2003
Indonesian Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia, Presiden Republik Indonesia, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 19 November 2015
This statute regulates the Indonesian Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi). Specifically, it regulates the Court's position in the court hierarchy, as well as its judicial composition, and the types of cases it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate. The statute also regulates the appointment and resignation/dismissal of Constitutional Court judges.
Elucidation of Indonesian Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court
The elucidation (Penjelasan) to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Court Cases :: 7 Rajab 1428 / 20 July 2007
Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No. 5 of 2007: Political Nomination
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 26 October 2015
The applicant (Lalu Ranggalawe), a Central Lombok Regency Legislature (DPRD) member, submitted an application to the Constitutional Court on 5 February 2007, which he subsequently amended twice on 5 March 2007 and 13 March 2007. His application sought to impugn the validity of certain sections of Law No. 32 of 2004 on Regional Administration vis-à-vis the 1945 Constitution, which precluded him from self-nominating for the then-upcoming 2008 Nusa Tenggara Barat gubernatorial and vice-gubernatorial elections. While the applicant was a member of the Reformation Star Party (Partai Bintang Reformasi), he did not expect to be nominated by the party, and, therefore, wished to nominate as an independent candidate. Pursuant to arts 56, 59, and 60 of Law No. 32 of 2004, however, a gubernatorial candidate could only be nominated by a political party or coalition. In other words, independent candidates were not afforded the same opportunity as those nominated by a political party. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that his constitutional rights, as guaranteed by arts 18(4), 27(1), 28D(3), and 28I(2), had been contravened, and that arts 56(2), 59(1)-(5)(a), (5)(c) and (6), 60(2)-(5) should, therefore, be declared null and void.
The majority of the court acceded to the applicant’s submission insofar as it amended art 59 of Law No. 32 of 2004 to allow for the democratic and transparent nomination and election of independent regional head and vice-regional head candidates.