---

Petitioners’ attorney Hendarsam Marantoko in the revision trial of material review of Perppu on Mass Organizations, Monday (28/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held a hearing to revise the petition for material review of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2017 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Perppu) on Monday (28/8) afternoon. The hearing, which was scheduled to revise the petition, was led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat.

In the hearing, the attorney of the Petitioners, Hendarsam Marantoko, explained about the main improvement in the principal point of the petition. He mentioned there were more detailed and solid explanations in the principal point of the petition. According to the Petitioners, the provisions of Ormas Perppu in the a quo case may hinder the Petitioner in selecting or joining a mass organization. It may also restrict the Petitioners’ freedom of association and assembly in mass organizations.

"Because the a quo Perppu has revoked the provision of Article 68 of Law No. 17 of 2013 on mass organizations. As a result of the invalidation of Article 68 of the a quo Law, the role and function of the courts to objectively ensure the imposing of sanctions by the government is in accordance with the provisions of law, is lost or significantly decreases," said Hendarsam. 

As a result, Hendarsam continued, the government will very easily give sanction of revoke legal entity status of any mass organizations. Although it could only be based on subjective reasons, including the Petitioners’s organization, namely Advokat Cinta Tanah Air (ACTA) that often differed with the Government. 

"An a quo Perpu does not explicitly prohibit citizens from associating or assembling. However, it is important to note that the important thing of the freedom of association is the citizens’ freedom to choose and join whichever organizations," Hendarsam said. 

Furthermore, Hendarsam said that the Petitioners joined ACTA because they agreed with ACTA’s cause. The Petitioners considered ACTA to have a very noble purpose, which is to uphold truth and fight deceit in the field of law. 

"Thus, it is clear that Ormas Perppu has the potential to keep the Petitioners from obtaining their constitutional rights as set stipulated in Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," said Hendarsam. 

In the preliminary hearing, Case No. 52/PUU-XV/2017 was reviewed by Herdiansyah and Ali Hakim Lubis, who were advocates of ACTA. The Petitioners delivered several points in their petition, among which was that there was no state of emergency or crucial matters currently in Indonesia that might compel the government to make a Perppu. In addition, the Petitioners considered the Ormas Perppu contrary to Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution in conjunction with Article 28E Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution in that the Petitioners may potentially lose their constitutional rights because the freedom of association and assembly was arbitrarily restricted.

The Petitioners viewed that the Ormas Perppu had caused legal uncertainty. Such injustice could be potential loss of opportunity for the Petitioners to join mass organizations. When the government does not accept a certain mass organization, the government may arbitrarily impose dissolution on the organization, resulting in the loss of right to obtain equal opportunity to join a mass organization.

(Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---