Four Governmental Organizations (NGO) and three individual Petitioners sue Freedom of Association provisions in the Law on Society Organizations (Ormas). Fourth NGOs include FITRA Foundation of North Sumatra, the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), and Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW). While individual case Applicants are namely Indonesian Trade Union Confederation (KSPI) President Said Iqbal, Deputy Director of the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Choirul Anam, Executive Director Impartial Poengky Indarti. Preliminary hearing in this matter held on Monday (27/1) at the Plenary Court.

The Applicant filed a judicial review of Article 1 paragraph 1, item 6, Article 5, Article 8, Article 10, Article 11, Article 23, Article 29 paragraph (1), Article 42 paragraph (2), Article 57 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), and Article 59 paragraph (2) letter b, c, and e. The Applicant considers these articles detrimental to the constitutional rights of the Petitioners that seeks to promote and encourage participation in community development initiatives including efforts to fulfillment and protection of human rights, anti-corruption, clean governance, transparent, and accountable.

"The petitioners feel aggrieved with the formulation chapters, paragraphs, and phrases of the statute quo because it is inconsistent with the guarantee of the right to participate in nation building as well as contrary to the guarantee of the right to freedom of association is contrary to Article 24C, 28C paragraph (2), and 28E (3) of the Constitution of 1945," said Wahyudi Djafar as the attorney of the Applicant.

The provisions of Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Law Society Organizations which provide a definition of social organization by the Applicant has shortened the guaranteed protection of the right to freedom of association. Article 1 paragraph 1 of Law Organizations reads, "Community Organizations Organizations are hereinafter referred to as the establishment and organization voluntarily formed by society based on common aspirations, desire, needs, interests, activities , and goals for participation in development for the achievement of objectives of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia based on Pancasila."

In the petition, the Petitioners considered within the framework of international human rights law, the right to freedom of association includes the right is limited to implementation. However, the restriction must fully pay attention to the principles of the restrictions set forth by Internasiuonal Rights Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976. Terms such restrictions, the first is to be governed by the laws and regulations (prescribed by law). Second, it must rely on the legitimacy of the legitimate interests meliputui for reasons of national security, public security, public order, public morality, public health, and the rights or freedoms of others. Third, it should in a democratic society.

In addition, the Petitioners also object to the content of Article 5 of Law Organizations that restrict the purpose of an organization or union that live in Indonesia. The article reads as follows.

Article 5

Organizations aiming to :

a) Increasing community participation and empowerment ;

b ) To provide services to the public ;

c ) Maintain the value of religion and belief in God Almighty ;

d ) Preserve and maintain the norms , values ​​, morals , ethics , and cultural life in the community ;

e ) Conserve natural resources and the environment;

f ) Developing social solidarity , mutual help , and tolerance in public life ;

g ) Maintain , maintain , and strengthen national unity , and

h ) To realize the goal state



"Article 5 of Law quo clearly is a form of state intervention that is not in line with the guarantee of protection of the right to freedom of association as guaranteed by the Constitution of 1945. Limitation of understanding of social organization which then oversees all forms of associations or organizations that live in Indonesia, with a community organization or labeling organizations , appear to have narrowed the scope of protection of the right to freedom of association or unable mengakomodisi various forms of associations and organizations which fall within the scope protection of these rights. Of the Act quo instead impose a single regulatory regime for all associations and organizations that are clearly contrary to the spirit of protection of the right to freedom of association," said Wahyudi said that while the state is not allowed to define the goals of an organization. ( Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh )