Damai Harry Lubis as principal petitioner accompanied by his attorney attended in the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Ormas Law on Monday (4/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2017 on the Amendment of Law Number 17 Year 2013 on Mass Organizations or better known as Ormas Perppu was reviewed materially once more by the Constitutional Court (MK). This time, Advocates Eggy Sudjana and Damai Harry Lubis became the Petitioners of Case Number 58/PUU-XV/2017.

In the preliminary hearing held on Monday (4/9), the Petitioners argued that their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c, Article 80A, Article 82A paragraph (1) and (2) Ormas Perppu. In the principal point of their petition, the Petitioners claimed that the Ormas Perppu violated human rights in terms of conducting humanitarian and community activities. Represented by Ratih Puspa Nusanti, the Petitioners argued that the articles being reviewed prevented them from criticizing Government policies that were contrary with the Constitution and the laws and regulations.

"This is because of the administrative sanctions imposed in the regulations without judicial process. The implementation of criminal sanctions in the regulation creates uncertainty in criminal liability. It is detrimental to the Petitioners in providing advocacy to the parties in need," Ratih stated in the hearing led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat.

In addition, Ratih explained that Ormas Perppu did not fulfill the phrase "state of emergency" as referred to in Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. She continued, there was no regulation vacancy concerning mass organization and other regulations, both administratively and criminally. To that end, the Petitioners requested that the articles be revoked.

Judges’ Advice

In response to the petition, the Panel of Justices consisting of Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna and Suhartoyo gave suggestions for revision. Considering that there were seven petitions that review the same regulation, Palguna recommended that the Petitioners consider becoming a Relevant Party as other petitioners had entered further stage of listening to the statements of the Government and the House of Representatives.

"In order to be effective, what if the Petitioners add information from the Petitioners of cases of Ormas Perppu judicial review? That is, if you want to. The Petitioners requested formal review in the principal point of the petition, even though you also requested material review. In the event of the Petitioners wishing to become a Relevant Party, this petition will be revoked and [you] will immediately be filed as a Relevant Party so that in the next hearing [you] will be able to provide information as Relevant Party," he advised.

Meanwhile, Suhartoyo requested that the Petitioners describe the constitutional damages they had suffered. The Petitioners were given time until 18 September 2017 to submit the revision of the petition.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)