---

The Petitioners\\' Attorneys listened to the Judge’s advice in the preliminary hearing of the review of the Law on mass organizations (Ormas), Monday (7/8) at the Plenary all of the Constitutional Court. Photo by PR/Ifa.

Judicial review on the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) Number 2 Year 2017 on the Amendment of Law Number 17 Year 2013 on mass organizations(Ormas Law) was re-petitioned, both formal and material. This time, the Constitutional Court held a preliminary hearing on the case petitioned by four mass organizations, represented by the Advocacy Team of Islamic Organizations for Justice, Monday (7/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners, namely Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah Indonesia; Yayasan Forum Silaturrahim Antar-Pengajian Indonesia; Indonesian Islamic Student Association (PPMI); Hidayatullah Association; and Indonesian citizens, namely Amril Saifa, Zuriaty Anwar, Muhclis Zamzami Can, Munarman, and Chandra Kurnianto; considered that Perppu Ormas was not declared based on the 1945 Constitution. In material terms, the Petitioners claimed that Article 1 point 6 to 22, Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c, Article 80A paragraphs (1) and (2) of Perppu Ormas were contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28, Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Represented by Rangga Lukita, the Petitioners stated that their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of the Perppu because the declaration of the Perppu, which was a unity with the Ormas Law, was deemed not in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution and there was no ‘state of emergency’ as stipulated in Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioners, the declaration of the Perppu should be preceded by a declaration of state of emergency by the President, of which terms and consequences are stipulated by the law.

"Without a preceding declaration of state of emergency by the President, the declaration of the Perppu is not in accordance with the procedures of the 1945 Constitution and should be declared not legally binding," explained Rangga before Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman as chairman of the trial.

Rangga asserted that it would be equal to giving the President the right to freely determine whether or not there was \\'a state of emergency.’ In the end, he was worried that it could create possibilities of misuse of authority by the President in establishing the Perppu.

Dedi Suhardadi, another legal counsel, said that the Ormas Perppu had eliminated the Petitioners\\' right to defend themselves in court. "For Petitioners I to IV, the Perppu has eliminated their right to receive warning and defend themselves in court before their organization’s legal entity is dissolved and revoked," he explained.

In addition, the Petitioners argued that the norm on mass organizations that embrace and disseminate teachings that are contrary to Pancasila, as regulated in Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c and Article 82A paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Perppu Ormas, is very broad, might have multiple interpretations, and not binding. Such a rule, according to the Petitioners, may threaten their constitutional rights. "In the article, two different legal subjects are confused with a different act in one criminal provision," said Dedi.

Judge\\'s Advice

Responding to the Petitioners’ explanation, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna gave some advice, especially in relation to the legal standing and signature on the power of attorney. "The Statement on the legal standing of both the individuals and legal entities must be specified. For the legal entity, what kind of constitutional rights are violated. Also for the individuals, what are those?" asked Palguna.

In addition, Palguna also asked for clarity regarding the signatures on the power of attorney because he found several to different from the recipient and the giver. "For that, we expect that this trivial but risky matter, as it is related to law, will receive more attention, "he said.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo also observed the same thing about the power of attorney in the petition, which consists of two people, but with the signature of only one authorizer. Thus, Suhartoyo requested that the signatories be in accordance with the names in the statutes/bylaws of each mass organization that filed the case. In addition, Suhartoyo also asked the Petitioners\\' views on the articles being reviewed.

"I ask for the Petitioners’ view on the articles being reviewed, which part was ambiguous? Would it result in a double meaning in the implementation? So, the Petitioners please provide a clearer reason for their concerns, because there are different subjects between the mass organizations and administrators," he said.

At the end of the hearing, Anwar stated that the Petitioners were given fourteen days until Monday, August 21, 2017 at 08.00 to submit a revision of the petition.

(Sri Pujianti/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---