Legal Counsels of Lili Chadijah Wahid; Dedi Cahyadi, Wegig Gunawan Yusuf and Moch. Sulaiman in the decision session for the review of Act No. 27 of 2009 about the Peopleâs Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), City Councils (DPD), and Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) (Act on MD3) and Act No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties (Act on Political Parties), Friday (11/3).
Jakarta, MKOnline - The Constitutional Court (The Court) rejected in entirety of the petitions filed by Lili Chadijah Wahid. That was the decision read by the Chief Justice of The Court Moh. Mahfud MD accompanied by seven other justices on Friday (11/3) at The Court’s Plenary Room. The Case seeking to review the Act No. 27 of 2009 about People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), City Councils (DPD) and Regional House of Representatives (Act on MD3) and Act No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties (Act on Political Parties) registered in the Registrar Office with number 38/PUU-VIII/2010.
In The Court’s consideration, constitutional justices explained that the wish to empower political parties had been reflected in the Amendment of the 1945 Constitution with the insertion of several stipulations related to political parties, among others in Article 6A paragraph (2), Article 8 paragraph (3) and Article 22E paragraph (3). According to The Court, one of the efforts to empower the parties were by providing rights and authorities to them for imposing sanction in order to enforce discipline for their members, so that the members would not behave and act differently, moreover to be against the constitution also the policies as well as the working programs that had been outlined by the parties.
”This is a logical consequence for someone being a member of an organization, in this case a political party organization. The enforcement of discipline of the party is very crucial in implementing the working program of the party which had been offered during the election campaign. Besides that, discipline is needed to develop and strengthen the tradition of the party. Even though so, the authority of a political party to take a disciplinary action towards its members had to be arranged in an Act and related legislation products according to the principle of democracy and nomocracy (law). Within this framework, the Act No. 2 of 2008 had arranged such things, that in principle the existence of norms arranging the disciplinary actions for members of political parties including members who became members of the Parliament, was not against the constitution. Furthermore, Article 22B of the 1945 Constitution allowed the recalling of Parliamentary members whose requirements and procedures were arranged through an Act,” explained a constitutional justice.
Besides that, continued a constitutional justice, a citizen who chose and joined a political party automatically volunteered to bow to, bound to, and approved the party’s constitution. Every member of the Parliament who represented a political party needed to have a good integrity, and in turns had to give an accountability on their commitment and performance. A member of the Parliament was nominated by certain party, therefore the candidate was a representation of a political party in the Parliament.
”As an effort to implement the authority and integrity of a political party, then the party could propose to the leaders of the Parliament to recall and make a substitution to a member of the party who also became a member of the Parliament because they were considered to breach the party’s constitution. If a political party is not provided with an authority to impose sanction to their misbehaved members outside the party’s constitution and policy, then the member could do what they want,” explained The Court.
Even though, a political party was authorized to do a temporary substitution for their members who served as a member of the Parliament; in the implementation, it should be according to the stipulation within the law (vide Article 22B of the 1945 Constitution) and the party’s constitution, thus it could not be executed recklessly or in a way that is breaking the law. If that was done, then the mentioned member could take a legal effort through State-administration court or through general court. “Based on the entire legal consideration explained above, The Court commented that the arguments for the petitions do not have a legal base. Even though the main substance of the petition a quo have been decided on the previous case (Decision No. 008/PUU-IV/2006, dated September 28, 2006) so that the petitions were considered ne bis in idem and the petitions should be unaccepted; because the main substance of the petition a quo is put in different Act from the one which have been decided on, the petitions a quo have to be announced rejected,” explained a constitutional justice.
Therefore, in the conclusion, The Court concluded that the Petitioners had a legal standing to propose such petition. “Arguments of the Petitioners are baseless and legally baseless,” stated Mahfud. (Lulu Anjarsaari/mh/YDJ)
Friday, March 11, 2011 | 14:04 WIB 158