The requirement stated in Article 2 paragraph (3) sub-paragraph b of Law Number 31 Year 2002 regarding Political Party (Political Party Law) is one of the requirements to form both a national and a local political party that aims at strengthening the political party basis in community. Besides, the said stipulation also aims at encouraging public participation as an effort to increase legitimacy and quality of democracy of the parties which represent the aspiration of the community. The Government considers that the said requirement could also encourage public participation in channeling the aspiration the rights for which are guaranteed in the Constitution.

Abdul Wahid Masru, the Director General of Legislation of the Department of Law and Human Rights conveyed the gave the aforesaid statement on behalf of the Government in a session for the judicial review of the Political Party Law in the plenary hall of the Constitutional Court, on Tuesday (4/12). The session was presided over by the Chief Justice of the Court, and also attended by Mualimin Abdi who represented the Government and Lieus Sungkharisma (Chairman of the Indonesian Chinese Reform Party) as the Petitioner.

In the court session, Constitutional Court Justice Natabaya questioned the legal standing of the Petitioner who considered as if his Party had suffered constitutional right impairment due to the provision while the Petitioner’s party no longer exists; In fact, the Petitioner filed his petition as a private person.

In response, the Petitioner explained that the party was established based on Law No. 2 Year 1999. However, after the Law was declared as being no longer in force and replaced by Law No. 31 Year 2002, the party could no more conduct its activities. “The requirement in the a quo Law made it impossible for our party to have a legal entity status, and we consider the matter as having impaired the rights of association and assembly and the right to express opinions,” Lieus admitted.

During the previous session (13/11) the Petitioner stated that the discrimination towards the role of Chinese community to participate in the development has started with the issue of the circular letter from the Ampera Cabinet Presidium Number SE06/Peskap/1967 dated 20 June 1967 that instructed all Governmental lines of the bureaucracy, civil, and military, to replace formally the name Tionghoa into Cina and the Republik Rakyat Tiongkok (People’s Republic of Tiongkok) into Republik Rakyat Cina (the People’s Republic of China).

According to the Petitioner, the Law Office of Drs. Edi Sadli, S.H. and partners already filed a petition on 10 August 2001 to the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Madame Megawati to revoke the circular. However, up to now the said petition has not received any positive response. Therefore, the Petitioner plans to make use of that circular as additional evidence in the judicial review case, in addition to presenting an expert in state administration.

Before closing the session, the Chairman of the Panel of Justices asked the Petitioner as well as the Government that the witnesses or experts they intend to present should be firstly informed to the Panel of Justices. (Mastiur AP)