---

Registering Civil-based Organizations is now way much simpler as it may now be registered without registration letter from regents/mayors, governors and ministers. Decision to No.82/PUU-XI/2013 was read by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva at the Plenary Room.

"To grant the petition in part. Article 5 of which is against the 1945 Constitution should the purpose is not intended for cumulative and/or alternative measures. Article 8, Article 16 paragraph (3), Article 17, Article 18, Article 23, Article 24, Article 25, Article 34, Article 40 paragraph (1), and Article 59 paragraph (1) letter a in the CBO law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution, "said Hamdan read the petition filed by Muhammadiyah.

In the Court\\'s opinion read by Deputy Chief Justice Arief Hidayat, in addition to Article 16 paragraph (3), the Court declared Article 17, Article 18 of the Law do not have binding force as the provisions of the registration of community organizations associated with the scope of CBOs should be stated unconstitutional as well. Organizations that want to register, can only register their mass at the seat of the relevant community organizations without requiring a certificate of registered letter from regents/mayors, governors and ministers. "The procedures for the registration of the mass organizations can be set in lower legislation as stipulated in Article 19 of the Law," explained Arief.

Meanwhile, related to organizations objectives referred to Article 5 of CBO Law, Court judged that CBO should be given the freedom to determine their destiny as long as it does not contradict the state basis and 1945 Constitution, without imposing cumulatively to formulate objectives as defined in Article 5 of CBO Law. Thus, the goal contained in Article 5 of Law 17/2013 does not violate the right to freedom of association guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, the word "and" contained in Article 5, paragraph g of Law 17/2013 should be supplemented with the word "/ or "so that these objectives can be altered.

CBOs’ Scope Unconstitutional

Meanwhile, related to the constitutionality of the scope of the national CBO distinction as stipulated in Article 8, Article 23, Article 24, and Article 25 of CBOs Law, the Court considered the scope of CBOs in such distinction can curb the principle of freedom of association and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Court, what became the basic principles for community organizations that are not incorporated, can register with the government agency responsible for it and may also not enroll. When an unincorporated community organizations, has signed up to be recognized as a mass organization to perform activities of regional organizations and national in scope. A CBO can enroll at any level of government that holds the authority.

Otherwise, based on the principle of freedom of association and assembly, a mass organization that is not registered with government authorities does not receive services from the government (state), but the state cannot set the mass organizations as prohibited, nor the state can prohibit the activities of community organization as long as it does not engage in activities that disrupt security, public order, or legal violations. "Based on these considerations, the arguments of the petition concerning Article 8, Article 23, Article 24, and Article 25 of Law 17/2013 have legal grounds," he said.

 

 

Threatens Creativity

Meanwhile, related to the position of the government in the empowerment of the CBOs, Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim explained that progress and setbacks of a CBO is an internal affair that belongs to the freedom and responsibility of the relevant community organization. Should at the end Organizations cannot afford to continue the sustainability of the organization, it is at any way natural and reasonable. However, it does not mean state is not allowed to provide assistance to community organizations in the form of funding or other support to promote a CBO. It may be performed to adjust CBOs’ necessity and voluntarily accept it.

Alim added otherwise as if the activity of CBOs is proven threatening security and public order, impairing the right of freedom of others, as well as breaking the moral values and religious values, the state is obliged to guarantee public order functions and can perform law enforcement to stop the activity. "According to the Court, the intervention of the state in the empowerment of community organizations will threaten people\\'s creativity in expressing their right to freedom of assembly and association that are guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, so that the Petitioner\\'s argument regarding Article 40 of which is legally reasonable," he added.

 

While Article 9, Article 10, Article 11, Article 21, Article 30 paragraph (2), Article 33 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 35, Article 36, and Article 38 of Organizations law filed by the applicant, the Court stated contrary to Article 28A, Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28E paragraph (3), and Article 29 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. To the argument, said Alim, the Court found no reason petition filed by the Applicant conflicting between norms in chapters with 1945 Constitution, because the Petitioner does not specify the reasons that those articles are contrary to the Constitution. "Therefore, the Court declares Petitioner\\'s argument is vague or unclear. Considering that based on all the foregoing considerations, the Court, grants the petition for partial legal grounds, "said Alim. (Lulu Anjarsari/kun)

---