---

Minister of Home Affairs Tjahjo Kumolo and Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yasonna Hamonangan Laoly after the judicial review hearing of Law on Mass Organizations scheduled to hear the statement of the President and Relevant Parties, Wednesday (30/8) in Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

The hearing of review of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2017 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Perppu) was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (30/8). The agenda was to listen to the statement of the President and Relevant Parties, namely Pancasila Defenders Forum of Advocates (FAPP) and the National Secretariat of Indonesian Advocates. The trial was held for seven cases, namely cases No. 38, 39, 41, 48, 49, 50, and 52/PUU-XV/2017.

In his statement, Minister of Home Affairs Tjahjo Kumolo representing the government answered that the word “menganut” ("embrace") in Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c of Ormas Perppu questioned by Ismail Yusanto (Petitioner Number 39). The government agreed with the Petitioner because the word "menganut" in its conceptual meaning cannot be criminalized. Nevertheless, the government believed that "menganut" also concerned with concrete matters, ranging from disseminating teachings in written and oral forms, as well as realized in the organization’s statute and bylaws. The government claimed that it did not forbid anyone to embrace and teach certain doctrines, but to limit things that are contrary to Pancasila. The reason is that the government is obliged to maintain the integrity of the state and nation and to create public order. In relation to the word written in the Ormas Perppu, the government also considered that the a quo article cannot stand alone, so contextual interpretation of the word cannot be done arbitrarily.

In his presentation, Tjahjo added that according to the Indonesian Language Dictionary (KBBI), the government\'s choice of using the word "menganut", which is defined as \' following a certain doctrine,’ was appropriate. In their development, many mass organizations developed doctrines that are contrary to Pancasila. "The rapid development of doctrines and ideologies that are contrary to Pancasila by mass organizations will potentially disrupt and impact the nation’s integration. Therefore, such a violation is a very reprehensible act. Therefore, sanctions should be given strictly in the form of administrative sanctions, written warnings, and dissolution of mass organizations," Tjahjo explained in the hearing, which was also attended by Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yasonna Laoly.

In relation to the argument of the Aliansi Nusantara (Petitioner Number 41) stating that the Perppu has limited human rights protected by Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the government is of the opinion that freedom of association and assembly [in the case], either individually or collectively, was not restricted. With the Ormas Perppu, he added, the government actually provides legal certainty to the people who want to form mass organizations to participate in development to achieve state objectives based on the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila.

"Gathering and giving opinion is the right of citizens guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila. The existence of mass organizations is the participation and collective potential of the people. To that end, the state is obliged to recognize and guarantee its sustainability; every citizen is obliged to respect; and the state must regulate the harmony between individual and collective rights and freedoms of the citizens," explained Tjahjo in the session led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat.

No Constitutional Damage

In addition, the government stated that states that declare themselves to be democratic states of law must regulate the harmony between individual and collective rights and freedoms. Implementation of moral values must be appropriate in order to maintain the integrity of the state and nation. To that end, the government is required to keep the activities of mass organizations within the corridor of the law.

"In order to create a harmonious relationship among stakeholders, the government must implement the principles of a legal state in a democratic manner and the people must be aware of their rights and obligations. The intended restriction only means that in exercising their rights and freedoms, every citizen must obey the provisions of the law to protect the rights of others," explained Tjahjo.

In relation to the management of mass organizations, Tjahjo delivered the government\'s assessment that it was not a form of discrimination. Each a quo article is not discriminatory because it does not discriminate people on the basis of sex, religion, education, political affiliation, language, and so on. "Such a thing [indiscrimination] is not realized in the Perppu," he said.

In relation to the material petitioned by the Petitioners regarding freedom of assembly, which is a human right, the government conveyed that mass organizations are potentials of the society that must be managed. To that end, the state is obliged to recognize the existence of mass organizations, in terms of management, statute and bylaws, and their [mass organizations’] contribution, which must be rooted in the values ​​of Pancasila.

State of Emergency

The dynamics of mass organizations is undergoing metamorphosis so that the coverage, sectors, and modes of activity, and relationships that were initially limited within the social scope can develop in ideology, politics, et cetera. The number of mass organizations recorded by the government in Indonesia on July 6, 2017 was 344,039. This rapid development has created potential problems. Through Ormas Perppu, the government acknowledges that the perppu is still limited to definitions and procedures, and on the other hand, the imposition of sanctions for mass organizations is deemed ineffective. In addition, Tjahjo also mentioned that the legal vacuum cannot be filled by creating laws. "A state of emergency is necessary to be resolved because it takes a long process to make the law," he explained.

According to the government, current mass organizations have openly performed actions aimed at replacing the constitutional foundation, the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila, with other doctrines. Such actions by mass organizations forced the government to regulate them through a perppu. "The government exercises control over mass organizations that are truly contrary to Pancasila, and it is decided on the basis of full consideration. So, when revocation of a mass organization is carried out, this indicates a violation of Pancasila," said Tjahjo in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building.

On the same occasion, the Relevant Party also provided information related to seven Petitioners who claimed that Ormas Perppu were against the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila. Teguh Samudera, a representative of the Pancasila Defenders Forum of Advocates (FAPP), said that there was indeed an urgency to revoke the legal status of mass organizations that are contrary to the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila. "This action is an effective legal product," said Teguh accompanied by fellow FAPP advocates.

He also explained that prior to the issuance of Ormas Perppu, factually, some organizations had been shown to have principles that were against Pancasila, or even to intend to replace Pancasila with other doctrines, orally and in writing. This, he argues, raises hatred and the action potentially leads to chaos.

At the end of the hearing, Arief asked the parties to make a conclusion in case there were objections or intention to convey matters regarding the hearing. The next session was scheduled on Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

(Sri Pujianti/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---