Principal Petitioner Muhammad Suryani, Sani Abdullah and Husien Djunaidi the inaugural session of the review of Act No. 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperation, on Monday (6 / 6), in Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building.
Jakarta, MKOnline – The Constitutionality of Act No. 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperation was reviewed in the Constitutional Court (MK), Monday (6 / 6). The case registered with No. 32/PUU-IX/2011 was filed by Muhammad Suryani, Sani Abdullah, Husien Djunaidi and Badriah.
The Petitioners who arrives without a legal counsel have members of the cooperation since 1953. As a member of the cooperation, the Petitioner considers their constitutional rights have been damaged with the enactment of Article 20 Paragraph (1) letter a and Article 37. Article 20 Paragraph (1) a letter stating, "(1) Every member has the obligation: a. comply with the Articles of Association and Bylaws and the decisions agreed upon at the Meeting Members ...". Meanwhile, Article 37menyebutkan that "Approval of the annual report, including the ratification of the annual calculation, an acceptance of accountability by the Meeting of Board Members." According to Muhammad Syriac, he and three other applicants are members of the cooperative since 1953 until now. "Then, the management changes occur. In the 90's, many problems exist that are contrary to the 1945 Constitution, "he explained.
Responding to the petition, the Panel of Justices, chaired by the Constitutional Court Justice Anwar Usman recommends that Petitioner improve the structure of the application by looking at examples in the Registrar's Office. "Then, about the norms that are tested, there are at least two articles, the petition submitted in his petition, which became stone test section contained in the Act on Cooperatives. Anchored by Petitum Petitioner no consistency, what is described in the arguments with Petitum. Then that must be considered, from the Petitioners' arguments concerning the problem of civil led to the criminal. Please order in their petition repaired swooped on the reasons that you want to test against the 1945 Constitution Act. Because AD is also related to ART cooperative, "he explained.
Sementara itu, Hakim Konstitusi Maria Farida Indrati sebagai Anggota Panel menjelaskan kedudukan hukum (legal standing) merupakan hal utama dalam sebuah permohonan di MK. Selain itu, posita permohonan, lanjut Maria, terlalu singkat sehingga tidak terlihat jelas permasalahan konstitusionalitas norma UU Koperasi yang diajukan oleh Pemohon. “Jadi, sebaik apapun permasalahannya, kalau kedudukan hukum tidak memenuhi, maka permohonan akan ditolak. Apakah mempunyai kapasitas untuk mewakili anggota yang lain? Dinyatakan permasalahannya terlebih dahulu. Karena ada permasalahan ini, maka ada permasalahan norma, kalau hanya ini saja maka ini hanya masalah implementasi dari UU tersebut. Selain itu, para pemohon harus menjelaskan hak-hak konstitusional Pemohon yang terlanggar akibat berlakunya pasal a quo,” katanya.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati as a Member of the Panel to explain the legal status (legal standing) is the main thing in a petition in the Court. In addition, posita petition, continued Maria, was too short so that no obvious problems Cooperatives Act constitutionality of the norms proposed by the Applicant. "So, no matter how well the problem, if you do not meet the legal position, then the application will be rejected. Do have the capacity to represent other members? Otherwise the problem first. Because there is this problem, then there are problems of norm, if only just then this is just a matter of implementation of the Act. In addition, the applicant must explain the constitutional rights of which violated due to the enactment of article a quo, "he said.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court recommends that Petitioner Harjono replace the article that made the test stone. Harjono said that in testing law, which is tested is the articles of law against the 1945 Constitution. "You want to testing this Article 20 Paragraph (1) letter a and Article 37 of Law of Cooperatives of Article 34 of the Law of Cooperatives as well. If so, then it is not included in the testing of laws against the 1945 Constitution. Article should have done is tested by law clauses in the 1945 Constitution. What about filing it? In fact, the Court already has PMK 06/2005. Applicants can find, "he explained.
Majelis Hakim Panel memberikan waktu selama 14 hari bagi Pemohon untuk melakukan perbaikan. Anwar menegaskan bahwa MK mengadili perkara mengenai konstitusionalitas norma, bukan masalah implementasi suatu pasal undang-undang. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh)
Panel of Jusices provided 14 days to give time for the applicant to make improvements. Anwar stressed that the Court hear cases regarding the constitutionality of the norm, not the problem of implementation of articles of law. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yogi Dj)
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 | 05:57 WIB 238