---

The media interviewed Applicant’s Attorney Eben Eser Naibaho on Wednesday (29/4) at Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie  

 

 

Two Functional Group (Golongan Karya –Golkar) cadres Tua Alpaolo Harahap and Anirwan filed a petition on Act No. 2 Year 2011 of Political Parties (Undang-Undang Partai Politik –UU Parpol) to the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK). The preliminary session of Case No. 48/PUU-XIII/2015 was held on Wednesday afternoon (29/4).

The norms reviewed were Article 23 (3) which stated “New board composition of political parties as stipulated in paragraph (2) shall be determined by Ministerial Decree at the latest 7 (seven) days from the requirements accepted”(“Susunan kepengurusan baru partai politik sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) ditetapkan dengan Keputusan Menteri paling lama 7 (tujuh) hari terhitung sejak diterimanya persyaratan.”) , and Article 24 which stated “In the case of new board political parties dispute as a result of highest forum, the ratification of board changing cannot be done by Minister until the dispute is resolved.” (“Dalam hal terjadi perselisihan kepengurusan partai politik hasil forum tertinggi pengambilan keputusan partai politik, pengesahan perubahan kepengurusan belum dapat dilakukan oleh Menteri sampai perselisihan terselesaikan.”).

The Applicant argued Article 23 (3) Act of Political Parties which regulated the authority of political parties’ new board ratification laid on the incumbent government had caused discrimination.

“The Article is potentially cause discrimination towards the recognition of party’s rights and the right to obtain security, protection and legal certainty in justice as well as equal treatment before the law,” said Applicant’s Attorney Eben Eser Naibaho.

Eben said the political parties determined the motion and policy direction as well as the government sustainability. Therefore, the purpose of mannered political atmosphere couldn’t be done when the authority of political parties’ new board ratification laid on Justice and Human Rights Minister.

Eben elaborated the petition arguments with the recent situation in the Functioned Group Party. “The Applicant feel the impact occurred towards authority abuse done by Justice and Human Rights Minister who issued Decree on the ratification of Agung Laksono’s faction and also does not implement the principle of legal security or conduct arbitrarily acts,” explained Eben.

According to the Applicant, the events that befall the United Development Party and the Functioned were the fact of policy mistake and it led to the confusion and disunity which caused the repel of self-claimed factions, and even reported to the Police Headquarters.

“Article 24 Act Number 2 Year 2011 obviously stated that Minister cannot issue Decree on the dispute of political parties in which the meaning is absolute authority of one faction’s validity determined by the Minister, in this  case Justice and Human Rights Minister,” explained Eben.  

According to the Applicant, the Justice and Human Rights Ministry was supposed to be the registration place, instead of determined the validity of political parties’ new board. Therefore, Article 23 (3) and Article 24 Act of Political Parties were potentially violated the political parties’ rights and liberty, which stipulated in Article 28J (2) the 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 –UUD 1945).

Responded to Applicant arguments, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna assessed the Applicant petition was a matter of implementation. “You suppose to elaborate the constitutional loss suffered, and deliver reasons that the norms you filed are unconstitutional,” said Palguna. “However, we expect you have argumentations after petition revision,” added Palguna.

Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman responded that there were contradictions between the Applicant reasons with the petitum in the petition. The rest of it, Anwar agreed with Palguna that the Applicant petition was a matter of implementation. “Where is the unconstitutional aspect in articles you filed?”

Meanwhile Chief Justice Arief Hidayat highlighted the evidence, which was the Political Party Membership Card (Kartu Tanda Anggota parpol –KTA parpol) possessed by the Applicant. He assessed the card was the Golkar-affiliated mass organization, the Mutual Assistance Consultative Organization (Musyawarah Kekeluargaan Gotong Royong –MKGR). In addition, Arief advised the Applicant to complete his attorneys’ entire signature. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N.)

---