Act 17/2012 on Cooperatives to be reviewed to the Constitutional Court (MK). Preliminary hearing this case Number 28/PUU-XI/2013 take place on Wednesday (20/3) at the Plenary Court. Some cooperatives in East Java recorded as the applicant in this case, including the Employees Cooperative Republic of Indonesia (GKPRI) East Java, Central Village Unit Cooperatives (Puskud) East Java, East Java Women’s Cooperative Center (Puskowanjati), Central Cooperative An-Nisa ‘East Java, Central Cooperative BUEKA Assakinah East Java, Indonesia Dairy Cooperative Association, and several individual applicants.

Through their attorney, Aan Eko Widiarto, Petitioner objected to Article 1 paragraph 1, Article 50 paragraph (1), Article 55 paragraph (1), Article 56 paragraph (1), Article 66, Article 67, Article 68, Article 69, Article 70, Article 71, Article 72, Article 73, Article 74, Article, 75, Article 76, Article 77, Article 80, Article 82, and Article 83 of Law No. 17 Year 2012 on Cooperatives (Cooperatives Act). According to the Petitioners, the articles had violated their constitutional rights as guaranteed by Article 28C Paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (2), Article 28H Paragraph (4), and Article 33 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

"Cooperative definition as a legal entity established by individuals clearly shows that the spirit of (legal policy) the establishment of this law is to change the paradigm of cooperative existence was previously a joint venture into private business," said Aan in front of the judges, chaired by M. Akil Mochtar.

Aan clarified the definition of cooperatives as provided for in Article 1 paragraph 1 of Law Cooperatives were oriented on the meaning of the cooperative as an entity and not worth the materiality of the placement and the involvement of men (people) in the process of forming and survival of the cooperative. It is, further Aan, allowing that man will be the object of a business entity and not the subject of the Cooperative. "Thus Article 1 paragraph 1 Cooperatives Act violated Article 33 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," he said.

In addition, the provisions of Article 67 Aan described paragraph (1) that regulates primary deposits paid by the members at the relevant time applying as a member and cannot be restored is contrary to Article 28H Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Then, the Petitioner also argued that Article 83 Law on Cooperatives, contrary to Article 33 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Such provisions, continued Aan, breaking into some kind of cooperative sorts by rating applicant does not comply with the principle of economy developed as a joint effort.

"Solving the cooperative is not done for the company and the state. It is like ‘mutilating’ cooperatives. In general, the Act on Cooperatives to replace auto Parts Company and it was contrary to the 1945 Constitution," he explained.

In the trial which was also attended by Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim and Hamdan Zoelva as Judges, Judge suggested improvements for the Petitioner. Hamdan suggested that giving reasons for the plea petition that asks almost all the articles of the Law on Cooperatives. "In connection with an application to request cancellation of nearly the entire article, you must assemble the philosophical as the reason for the petition," he advised.

Meanwhile, Akil suggested that the applicant is private legal entities include AD / ART. Not only that, Akil asked that the applicant re-examine the legal position of the applicant, divided into private legal entities and individuals. "Constructed legal status back," he said.

Applicants are given 14 days to make repairs petition. If the applicant does not do the repairs, then the Court will use the previous petition. The next trial would be repairing requests. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)