---

Jeje Jaenudin as Principal Petitioner when interviewed by electronic media after the hearing of the revision of petition for judicial review of Law on Mass Organizations (Ormas Law), Tuesday (15/8) at the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held a follow-up hearing to review Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) Number 2 Year 2017 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Perppu), Tuesday (15/8). The hearing of Case Number 49/PUU-XV/2017 was on the revision of the petition.

The Petitioner is the Leader of the Central Committee of Persatuan Islam(PP Persis) represented by the Vice Chairman of PP Persis Jeje Jaenudin. The Petitioner revised his legal standing in relation to PP Persis’ statutes and bylaws according to suggestion of Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo in the preliminary hearing session.

"The basis of statutes and bylaws of Persatuan Islamas well as other Islamic mass organizations is Islam. Because the Perppu contains the phrase ‘to develop and disseminate teachings or ideologies that are contrary to Pancasila," said Jeje.

The Petitioners reviewed Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c of Ormas Perppu which reads, "embraces, develops, and disseminates teachings or ideologies contrary to Pancasila.” In addition, the Petitioner reviewed Article 61 paragraph (3), Article 62 paragraph (3), Article 82A Ormas Perppu.

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner argued that the norm of Article 61 paragraph (3) and Article 62 paragraph (3) of the Ormas Perppu were considered a form of democratic decline in the state law. It is because the Perpu has eliminated the role of the courts in the attempt to dissolve mass organizations. The loss of the role of the courts in the dissolution of mass organizations is an obvious violation of one of the principles of the law, that is, due process of law.

The Petitioner also argued that the legal content of Article 59 paragraph (3) letter a of the Ormas Perppu and its elucidation is a regulation that limits a citizen’s constitutional rights of in expressing their thoughts and attitudes in accordance with their conscience and in expressing opinions.

In addition, according to the Petitioner, the interpretation of "ideologies contrary to Pancasila" will encourage the government to dissolve any organizations deemed contrary to the government. It could lead to the government potentially abusing power in running the country, thus threatening its citizens’ constitutional rights of association and assembly.

Furthermore, the Petitioner assessed that the criminal sanction as regulated in Article 82A of the Ormas Law led to legal uncertainty. That is because the article stipulates that every member and committee member of mass organizations who indirectly violates the provisions of Article 59 may be subject to criminal penalties. In fact, according to the Petitioner, to determine criminal liability, indispensable evidence is required.

The Petitioner was of the opinion that the legal content in Articles 59, 61, 62, and 82A of Ormas Perppu was the spirit and the core of the a quo Perppu. The Petitioner concluded that the a quo Perppu deserved to be completely revoked so as to have no binding legal force and legal consequences.

(Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---