Plenary hearing of the judicial review of the Law on Mass Organizations (Ormas Law) with the agenda of expert’s and witness\' statements from the Petitioners’ side on Wednesday (6/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) claimed that it had never been warned by the government that the organization was contrary to Pancasila prior to the dissolution. This was stated by former Executive Board of HTI Abdul Fanani who became Petitioner for Case No. 39/PUU-XV/2017 in the session that was scheduled to hear the expert’s and witness’ information of the judicial review of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2017 on the Amendment of Law Number 17 Year 2013 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Perppu). The trial on Wednesday (6/9) was held for seven petitions, namely Case No. 38/PUU-XV/2017, 39/PUU-XV/2017, 41/PUU-XV/2017, 48/PUU-XV/2017, 49/PUU-XV/2017, 50/PUU-XV/2017, and 52/PUU-XV/2017.

In his statement, HTI Secretary General Abdul Fanani also revealed that there were no complaints from the government regarding HTI da\'wah (religious proselytizing), let alone claiming [HTI] contrary to Pancasila. He also said that HTI sought to have an audience with the government, but it was not responded. HTI, he added, had never been given a warning about practicing doctrines that are contrary to Pancasila.

A similar sentiment was expressed by another HTI witness, Faridji Wadjdi. He responded to the video presentation of HTI Islamic State National Congress (Muktamar Khilafah) in 2013, which was used as evidence by the government to dissolve HTI. Regarding the event, Faridji revealed there were no complaints from the police or the government about the event. According to him, the video only showed da\'wah about Islam as a whole. The khilafah (Islamic state) propagated by HTI is only a small part of the da\'wah and there had never been any complaints against the da\'wah,” he stated answering questions from Yusril Ihza Mahendra as HTI\'s legal counsel.

No Sense of Urgency

Meanwhile, Margarito Kamis presented by HTI stated that there was preferential treatment by the government because some other organizations that violated the law did not face dissolution. Ormas Perppu should have included those problematic mass organizations. In addition, he continued, he mentioned that there was no reason for the Ormas Perppu to be passed. According to him, the creation of Ormas Perppu did not fulfilled conditions required for the creation of a Perppu, such as a state of emergency. He stated that state of emergency means the urgency to resolve legal issues promptly under the law.

“Then, the required legislation is not available so there is a legal vacuum, or there is a law but is inadequate. In my opinion, currently there is no legal vacuum,” he explained before the Panel of Judges led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

HTI also presented Abdul Gani Abdullah as Expert. He said that dissolution of mass organizations should go through the court. When [an organization] is dissolved in the absence of court proceedings, it will violate the human rights of the citizens.

In their petition, the Petitioners felt that the enforcement of Ormas Perppu violated the constitutional right to associate and assemble as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioners, Ormas Perppu allowed the government to take unilateral action without considering a mass organization’s right to reply. Consequently, such provision may be arbitrarily exploited. Furthermore, the Petitioners claimed that Ormas Perppu had taken over the duties of judges in trying cases.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)