Dhuafa Wallet Foundation applied judicial review of Act 23/2011 on the Management of Zakat. The first trial of cases registered by Number 86/PUU-X/2012 was held on Friday (14/9) at the Panel Session Court. Not only Wallet Dhuafa Foundation, some charities were listed as the applicant in this case, namely Al-Falah Social Foundation and Independent Orphans Foundation.

In the subject petition, the petitioners are represented by Heru Susetyo as the attorney, argued that his constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution have been violated by the enactment of Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 17, Article 18, Article 19, Article 38 and Article 41 of Law No. . 23/2011. Petitioner argued chapters a quo potentially any element amil zakat criminalization of both individuals and institutions. "Article 38 and Article 41 of Law no. 23/2011 explicitly stated and we saw the criminalization of amil zakat elements of both individuals and institutions that do not have the permission of the competent authority within the meaning of amil zakat is a person who collects alms are not Government institutions. This part of the constitutional infringement amil zakat," said Heru.

Heru also explains Article 17 of Law no. 23/2011 indicates inequality between zakat (BAZNAS). According to him, the word 'help' has inequality between BAZNAS with amil zakat. "Article 18 of Law no. 23/2011 does not mean equal, as expressed in Act on alms, the Law 38/1999. There should be equality between BAZNAS amil zakat and alms institutions. The word 'help' cause subordination and cause violations of constitutional rights of alms institutions," he said.

Constitutional judges chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Ahmad Sodiki with members of the Constitutional Court and advice the applicant. Sodiki requested that the applicant improve excuse petition. "Article petitioned for should be linked to articles in the 1945 Constitution. For example, Article 28 on freedom of religion is inserted because any relevance. Every article that you test them it involves constitutional BAZNAS brother if formed, would then, if the articles are canceled, then you do not get a loss again. You must provide an argument that the reason you make sense, "he advised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi suggested that the applicant agglomerate issues and elaborate on what BAZNAS provision contrary to the Constitution. "The applicant must determine the issue of the magnitude of what was found after BAZNAS and analysis based on the Constitution are incompatible. The structure is good, petitum is correct, but the argument that leads to the petitum that you please elaborate more that needs to be carefully because you are not just dealing with the three of us, but also the nine Justices, also forming," explained Fadlil.

Constitutional judges allow time for the applicant to correct the petition on the advice given. Applicant would be given for 14 days to correct the petition before the next hearing. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yazid.tr)