The Constitutional Court decided to grant judicial review of Law no. 2/2011 on Political Parties - Case No. 100/PUU-XI/2013 - the pronunciation of the trial verdict filed by Basuki Agus Suparno , et al , Thursday ( 3/4 ) which was read during the Plenary Chair Hamdan Zoelva, accompanied by other constitutional judges .

Court argued , put Pancasila as one of the pillars , in addition to sit together and equal with the other pillars , will lead to chaos epistemological , ontological , and axiological . Pancasila has its own position in the frame of the nation and state of Indonesia based on the constitution .

According to the Court , other than as the state , as well as the basic philosophy of Pancasila state , the fundamental norms of the country , state ideology , ideals state law , and so on . Therefore , placing the Pancasila as one of the pillars can obscure the position of Pancasila .

Considering that based on the above considerations , the Petitioners along the phrase " four pillars of national and state that " in Article 34 paragraph ( 3b ) letter a political party law legal grounds .

"The verdict granted the request of the Petitioners for most . The phrase " four pillars of national and state that " in Article 34 paragraph ( 3b ) letter a political party law contrary to the Constitution of 1945 and does not have binding legal force , "said Hamdan Zoelva .

As known , the norm being tested , namely Article 34 paragraph ( 3b ) a letter stating the Political Party Law , " Political Education referred to in subsection ( 3a ) relating to the following activities: ( a) deepening of the four pillars of national and state Pancasila , the 1945 Constitution , Unity in Diversity and the Republic of Indonesia " which puts this Article Pancasila as one of the pillars of nation and state are parallel to the national unity and the Unitary Republic of Indonesia has created legal uncertainty . Pancasila has a position that is not equal to unity and the Unitary State of Indonesia, Pancasila therefore placement is a fatal mistake .

The pronunciation of the verdict in the trial , Deputy Chairman Arief Hidayat has a different reason ( concurring opinion ) . In order to strengthen the function and role of political parties provide political education for the people , by the provisions of Article 34 paragraph ( 3a ) political party law , political parties that have seats in the Parliament and Council granted financial assistance from the state budget / budget and prioritized for conducting political education for members of political parties and the public .

According to the provisions of Article 34 paragraph ( 3b ) a, political education as prescribed in paragraph ( 3a ) are related to the deepening of the four pillars of national and state Pancasila , the 1945 Constitution , Unity in Diversity , and the Republic of Indonesia . The discourse on the position of Pancasila as the state or as a pillar of the country has long been debated in academic forums since popularized the term four pillars . Theoretically , understanding that considers the Pancasila as the pillar is less precise . Pancasila is not a pillar , but as the state as stated in the fourth paragraph of the 1945 opening

While Patrialis had different expression ( dissenting opinion ) . According to him, the petition filed by the petitioners is not an issue of constitutionality , so it must be declared unacceptable . Pursuant to Section 24C ( 1 ) of the 1945 Constitution , the Constitutional Court is one of the authorities to test the Law of the Constitution , whether a law contrary to the Constitution , violates the principle of human rights , is discriminatory and so forth . " So the question of the constitutionality of the norm is the main basis for the Court to conduct a judicial review of a law against the Constitution , " said Patrialis . ( Nano Tresna Arfana / mh )