Eggy Sudjana as Principal Petitioner accompanied by his legal counsel when submitting the principal of the revision to the petition for judicial review of Ormas Law on Monday (18/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

Eggy Sudjana and Damai Harry Lubis revised the petition for the judicial review of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2/2017 on the Amendment of Law No. 17/2013 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Perppu). The follow-up of case No. 58/PUU-XV/2017 was held on Monday (18/9) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioners, represented by Arvid Martdwisaktyo, explained that they had revised the petition in accordance with the advice of the Panel of Judges in the previous hearing. However, he continued, the Petitioners decided not to become Relevant Parties as the Panel of Judges had recommended, but continued with the petition.

In relation to that, Eggy Sudjana was present at the hearing led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman, to explain the reason for his petition. He claimed that the Ormas Perppu would actually divide Indonesia as a nation. Therefore, he requested that the Ormas Perppu be revoked.

"But in terms of nationalism, our plurality and diversity are not appropriate, as they disrupt Indonesian unity. Because if [the perppu] is still enforced, or if the Court believes that this perppu is valid and that it must be applied, we ask for consistency, [for the Court] to revoke [other regulations] that are contrary to Pancasila," he said.

In response to the Petitioners decision not to become Relevant Party in the hearing of the review of Ormas Perppu, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna requested that the Petitioners be present in the hearing to be held on October 2, 2017.

In the previous hearing, the Petitioners argued that their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Article 59 paragraph 4 letter c, Article 80A, and Article 82A paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Ormas Perppu. In the principal issue of their petition, the Petitioners claimed that the provisions violate human rights in conducting humanitarian and community activities. The Petitioners considered that those articles were potentially harmful to them when criticizing government policies that were against the Constitution and laws and regulations.

In addition, the Petitioners explained that the Ormas Perppu did not meet the “state of emergency” requirement as referred to in Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Strictly speaking, he continued, there were no void of regulations concerning mass organizations, either administratively or criminally and other provisions. To that end, the Petitioners requested that the petitioned articles be revoked.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)