Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim (Chairman) accompanied by Harjono and Maria Farida Indrati (members) while examining the revision of petition in the next session for a review of Act No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties, Tuesday (5/3) at the Plenary Courtroom.
Jakarta, MKOnline - Next session for the review of Act No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties was again held by the Constitutional Court (The Court), Tuesday (5/3) at the Plenary Courtroom. The case registered by number 18/PUU-IX/2011 was submitted by Choirul Anam and Tohadi from PKNU (National Ulema Awakening Party) who felt aggrieved after being threatened not to be able to join the 2014 Election.
In the session scheduled for verifying revised petition. The Petitioners represented their legal counsels M. Jamaluddin Shofisa said that they had revised the petition according to the advices from the Panel Board of Justices chaired by Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim. “We have changed the language redaction and in writing structures as advised by the Panel in the previous session. We also wish that our provisional petitum to be decided soon considering the closing time constraint (2014 election),” he explained.
In their main petition, the Petitioners filed for a review of Article 51 paragraph (1), Article 2 paragraph (1) and paragraph (1a), Article 3 paragraph (2) letter c and letter d, Article 4, Article 47 paragraph (1) Article 51 paragraph (1a), paragraph (1b), paragraph (1c) and paragraph (2) of Act No. 2 of 2011 on an Amandment on Act No. 2 of 2008 about Political Parties against the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners claimed that those articles were in contrary to the Article 28D paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution which stated, “Every person has a right on admission of security, protection, and fair legal certainty also equal treatment before the law.”
The enactment of the reviewed articles was considered by the Petitioners to potentially cause PKNU not to get assurance of equality and opportunity before the law and government also protection from discriminative actions. It was because, according to Article 8 paragraph (2) and Explanation to Article 8 paragraph (2) of Act No. 10 of 2008 about General Election for Members of House of Representatives (DPR), City Councils (DPD) and Regional House of Representatives (DPRD). PKNU still had an authorized legal entity and could be a participant in the following election without being verified of its legal entity status.
The Petitioners also claimed that the requirement to be verified of its legal entity status to the latest of two and a half years prior to the voting day in the election process was a burden and also discriminative to the parties which failed to meet the parliamentary threshold. The enactment of those articles was worried that the Petitioners potentially blocked and potentially killed the existence of PKNU as a legal entity (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/YDJ)
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 | 21:40 WIB 201