public assumptions of a ‘judicial mafia’ that was engineering legal cases, espe-
cially corruption-related cases.
Members of parliament and the government were not happy with the ‘progres-
sive’ position of the Constitutional Court. They are of the view that the
court has gone beyond its basic mandate. For instance, a court ruling in 2010
that annulled the result of a district election in West Kotawaringin, Central
Kalimantan, went too far because it also awarded victory to the runner-up.
Accordingly, the court should have annulled the results and called for a second
round of voting, as it did with the South Tangerang elections. In two other different
cases concerning the Law on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the
Law on Electrical Power, the court cancelled the entirety of laws, although only
several articles of those laws were petitioned for review. This is an issue ofnon ultra
petita, meaning ‘not beyond the request’, that a court may not decide more than
it has been asked to. A new law has been passed to limit the power of the Consti-
tutional Court (Law No 8 of 2011 ).
Former Constitutional Court chief justice Jimly Asshiddiqie said that the
changes were unconstitutional and would deny the court its main function.
‘The term “ultra petita” is only applicable to the civic court, and not to consti-
tutional [issues]’, Chief Justice Jimly said. ‘Judicial reviews are born fromultra
petita’.
18
Several academics were also not happy with this new law, and challenged
its validity before the Constitutional Court.
In the first case (No 48 ) the court decided to declare some of the Articles invalid.
In particular, Article 45 A and Article 57 , paragraph 2 a, of Law No 8 , Year 2011 , were
declared against the Constitution.
(^19) In the second case (No 49 ), the court decided
that ‘Article 4 paragraph f, g, h, Article 10 , Article 15 paragraph ( 2 ) letter h along
the phrase “and/or was a public officer”, Article 26 paragraph ( 5 ), Article 27 A
paragraph ( 2 ) letter c, d, and e, subsection ( 3 ), paragraph ( 4 ), subsection ( 5 ), and
paragraph ( 6 ), Article 50 A, Article 59 paragraph ( 2 ), and Article 87 Law No. 8 of
2011 are invalid’.^20
The court decided to allowultra petita, stating its ability to invalidate the whole
Act if the core section of the Act is against the Constitution, despite the fact that the
court was asked to examine only those sections or articles. In addition, the court
believes thatultra petitacourt decisions have commonly been conducted in other
countries.
Attempts have been made to examine provisions relating to the executive,
parliamentary and judicial branches in the 1945 constitution. The amendments
to the 1945 constitution have transformed the Constitution from a vague and
incomplete document rooted in an anti-democratic political philosophy of organic
(^18) Anita Rachman and Ulma Haryanto, ‘Constitutional Court’s Power to Be Limited’,Jakarta
Globe, 15 June 2011.
(^19) See Constitutional Court Decision No 48 /PUU-ix/ 2011 on 18 October 2011. (^20) Ibid.