Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 is very important and interesting to be studied because due to its implications and implementation. Ministry of Education and Culture as the addressat of the decision make transitional policy regarding on how to eliminate the policy concenring International Standard School/ International-Standard School Pilot Project (SBI/RSBI). In fact, transitional policy  is not addressed and does not have a legal basis in the implementation of the decision. There is a conflict between the normative provisions that Constitutional Court Decision are binding since   pronounced in an open session for the public   with the certainty of  cross-state agency collaborative cooperation to implement  the Court Decision. Therefore, there’s a need to investigate this Decision at the practical leve on how the decision is implemented. This research is doctrinal in which the object of the research is laws and regulations and other legal materials, in this case, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012. In addition, field studies are also conducted by way of searching mass media news which is important to be done in order to know the response of the public on how to implement the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012.  The  results  showed  that  (1)  the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 is that it eliminates the legal basis of RSBI policy. Consequently , the implementation of SBI/ RSBI should be stopped because it has lost its legal basis since the judgment is pronounced. In addition, the Government through the Ministry of Education and Culture, shall implement the decision, including to repeal or revise the technical regulations that become legal framework of RSBI, (2) The implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 can be seen in two categories, namely: (a) spontaneous implementation, which is implementation by some education authorities and the schools themselves by removing the attributes of SBI/RSBI shortly after the Constitutional Court’s decision was pronounced, without waiting for further instruction by Ministry of Education and Culture, and (b) a structured implementation through the Ministry of Education and Culture by issuing Circular of Minister of Education and Culture No. 017/MPK/SE/2013 about RSBI Transition Policy. Although this policy is contrary to normative-imperative provisions, the measure taken by the Ministry of Education and Culture to establish a transition policy is the most probable step taken in order that the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 can be implemented as it should be.

Why Constitutional Court verdict Number. 92/PUU-X/2012 attractive to serve as an object of research? The main reason is, there is a problem that is visible on   the implementation of the Decision. The problem shown in fact that can be observed after the verdict was pronounced in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court. Up to almost 1 (one) year later, since pronounced in the plenary session, the Constitutional Court also considered yet implemented. This research seeks to express the fact that covers the implementation of Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012. Therefore, although more as a normative-doctrinal research and/or prescriptive with the focus of study that leads to the question of “how it should act”, this research is very likely propose another style that touches the issue of  “what happened” and “why it happened”. The purpose of the implementation of this study was to determine and explain about the implementation of the Constitutional Court Number 92/PUU-X/2012, including to identify and explain the obstacles  and difficulties in the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012, and find out and explain the legal politics legislation following the Ruling of the Constitutional Court Number 92/PUU-X/2012. In this theoretical framework introduced some basic concepts that are key aspects to strengthen the argument in this study. In this regard, this study uses a few basic concepts, namely: (1) the law not only as a rule (rule) but also behavior (behavior), (2) awareness  and compliance with the law; (3) The strength of binding court decisions, and (4) Due to legal and implementation models court decision.

This research aims to analyze and to describe the relation between the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (CC) with the People Representatives’ Council and the President of the Republic of Indonesia as legislators by looking on implementation of CC’s decision through the legislation in the period 2004-2015. Using doctrinal research, it can be seen how the constitutional mandate in the CC’s decision are implemented by the legislator through the legislation. The results are: (a) legal opinions of the CC’s decision have a binding power; (b) a constitutional mandate in the legal opinion is intended as guidance for the legislators regarding what the 1945 Constitution requires; (c) directives to the legislator in the legal opinions should be implemented because it is the implementation of the principle of checks and balances according to the 1945 Constitution, (d) implementation of the CC’s decisions through legislation does not have standard mechanism and does not become the priority of legislation, and (e) relation between the CC with the legislators can not be categorized in black and white in cooperative or confrontative, but shows ups and downs between cooperative and confrontative relations. Cooperative relations are realized when the constitutional mandate is formulated strongly so it is implemented by the legislator as the formula. Relationships tend to be cooperative in the implementation of the constitutional mandate of the decision, but not a priority of legislation. Meanwhile, the confrontative relations is seen from the constitutional mandate of the CC decisions which are not implemented.

The major implication from Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 is that the Constitution promotes fundamental changes to the design of the general election regarding both process and substance. Therefore, in order to uphold the Constitution, efforts are required to reconstruct the design of the general election, particularly so that elections are conducted in accordance with Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 as a representation of the spirit and the will of the 1945 Constitution. Essentially, the current norm regarding the implementation of general elections following the election of members of the representative institution is not consistent with the stipulations in Article 22E Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) and Article 1 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 aims to realign the implementation of the elections with the intentions of the 1945 Constitution. Through implementation of the original intent method and systematic interpretation, the Constitutional Court offered its interpretation that the framers of the amended Constitution intended that general elections have five ballot boxes, with the first for the People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR), the second for the Regional Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, DPD), the third for the president and vice president, the fourth for the Regional People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah, DPRD) at the provincial level and the fifth for the DPRD at the regency level. Thus, it can be concluded that the presidential elections should be conducted simultaneously with elections of members of the representative bodies. Through this decision, the Constitutional Court revoked the prevailing norm, such that Presidential Elections and Elections of members of representative bodies were no longer valid because they violated the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court introduced a new legal condition that obligated General Elections to be held simultaneously.

Status keistimewaan Provinsi DIY dalam kurun waktu sekian lama lebih sering diinterpretasikan sebagai istimewa dalam hal wilayah yang dulunya berbentuk kerajaan, istimewa dalam pemimpin yaitu dipimpin dwi tunggal dari lingkungan Kasultanan dan Pakualaman, dan istimewa dalam sistem pemerintahannya yang hierarkis patrimonial. Apabila dikelompokkan, pemaknaan keistimewaan Provinsi DIY setidaknya terbelah menjadi 2 (dua) yakni pihak yang pro-pemilihan  dan  pro-penetapan.  Penetapan Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono sebagai Gubernur dan Sri Paku Alam sebagai Wakil Gubernur Provinsi DIY tidak bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip demokrasi menurut UUD 1945 karena dalam Pembukaan UUD 1945, para penyusun UUD 1945 sepakat untuk mengadaptasikan bentuk dan model demokrasi yang sesuai dengan budaya dan corak masyarakat Indonesia yakni demokrasi permusyawaratan berdasar kekeluargaan. Artinya, masyarakat DIY berhak bermufakat secara kekeluargaan mengenai mekanisme yang ingin dipraktikkan, sepanjang mekanisme tersebut dipandang demokratis, dalam arti tidak bertentangan dengan gagasan demokrasi permusyawaratan serta tidak mengabaikan hakikat keistimewaan DIY, termasuk melalui mekanisme penetapan. Dalam hal menentukan kepala daerah DIY, para pengubah UUD 1945  tidak memaknai demokrasi hanya melalui mekanisme pemilihan secara langsung oleh rakyat atau oleh DPRD, melainkan membuka mekanisme lain di luar itu sepanjang mekanisme tersebut dianggap demokratis dan mendapatkan payung hukum dari undang- undang.