Attorney of each Petitioner for Case 41-48-49. PUU-XV/2017 on the review of Law on Mass Organizations (UU Ormas) submitted the petition principals in the preliminary hearing, Wednesday (2/8) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas/Ganie.
Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 Year 2017 on Mass Organizations (Perppu Ormas) was re-petitioned for judicial review to the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (2/3). The trial was held for three cases petitioned by three different mass organizations, namely cases Number 41, 48, and 49/PUU-XV/2017.
Petitioner of Case Number 41 was Tatang Budiman Soelaim and Zainal Abidin as Chairman and Secretary General of the Executive Board of Aliansi Nusantara. The Petitioner requested formal and material reviews for Article 59 paragraph (1) a, Article 61, Article 62, and Article 82A of Perppu Ormas.
The Petitioner considered that the President had failed to understand the issuance of Perppu Ormas on the "consideration" point, especially on letters c, d, and e. Letter c with regard to the formal requirements and reason for the issuance of a Perppu had not been met. Letter d is related to the suspicion of the state through indication and factual discovery of the principles and activities of mass organizations that are against Pancasila and the Constitution. Meanwhile, letter e is concerned with the application of the contrarius actus principle, which eliminates the procedure of revocation of a mass organization’s legal body status through the court.
"In the consideration point, particularly on letters c, d, and e there is strategic value of the legislation. It contains the basic ideas that became the background and the reasons for legislative regulations in the form of philosophical, juridical, political, sociological, and administrative elements," said Wahyu Nugroho, the Petitioner\\\\\'s attorney.
Meanwhile, Petitioner of Case Number 48, Chandra Furna Irawan as Chairman of the Sharia Law Foundation Alqonuni argued that Perppu Ormas had abolished many legal norms that had been previously regulated in detail, including Articles 63 to 80 of Law Number 17/2013 on mass organizations.
"The formation of the Perppu, in fact, violates the essence of the establishment of regulations. The Perppu ignored several norms, the most crucial being the elimination of the judicial process in the Perppu," said Ahmad Khozinudin as the Petitioner\\\\\'s attorney.
Thus, according to the Petitioner, Perppu Ormas is not crucial because the aspect being regulated is change. So, there is no need to change the law through Perppu.
In addition, the Petitioner considered that the enactment of Article 1 paragraph (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22), and (23) of Perppu Ormas opened the possibility for the Government to of unilaterally remove the status of a mass organization as a legal body without examination in court while, in fact, the process was important to ensure the principle of due process of law.
The Petitioner of Case Number 49 is the Head of the Islamic Unity Center, represented by Jeje Jaenudin. The Petitioners argued that Article 59 Paragraph (3) letter a of Perppu Ormas, stating that mass organizations are prohibited from taking hostile actions against tribal affiliations, religion, race, or societal groups (SARA). "In fact, Article 28E Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution states that every person has the right to freedom to believe in beliefs, express thoughts and attitudes according to his conscience," said Rahmat as the Petitioner’s attorney.
Furthermore, the Petitioners also argued that Article 59 Paragraph (4) letter c, which stated that mass organizations are prohibited from embracing, developing, and disseminating teachings or doctrines that are contrary to Pancasila. His further elaborated what was meant by the ideology contrary to Pancasila as the teachings of atheism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, or other doctrines. "There is the addition of a formula, which originally there were only four, in the form of a phrase “other doctrines”. This has the potential to be misused by the authorities," explained Rahmat.
Judge\\\\\\'s Advice
Responding to the petition No. 41, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna advised the Petitioner to clarify the petitum. "Why in the petitum there are words “among others”? How about the other? Are they included or not? Or can they be either way? Right? So, it should be clearer," said Palguna.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo further highlighted the legal position of the Petitioners. "At first, I read the legal positions of the Petitioners as teacher and private employee. But then it turned out to be chairman and secretary general. It is customary that chairmen and secretary generals usually represent (an organization), but the organization’s statutes and bylaws should also be observed. Do not let any misuse of authority there," said Suhartoyo.
To the Petition No. 48, Palguna suggested that the purpose of the foundation and the constitutional right damages be further explained. Meanwhile Suhartoyo again advised the Petitioner to look at the organization’s statutes and bylaws in relation to its legal status. "Similarly, Case 49, which mentions the chairman and vice chairman as Petitioners. Well, in general, the chairman and general secretary are the ones who file a petition. There exceptions under the organization’s decisions, with the chairman and vice chairman being the highest authority in the organization, right? It’s powerful internally, so outsiders like us cannot interfere. However, it still refers to the statutes and bylaws, right?" said Suhartoyo.
(Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Friday, August 04, 2017 | 10:29 WIB 88