---

Petitioner\'s legal counsel Hendrayana delivering the petition principal for the judicial review of the Political Party Law, on Wednesday (31/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Article 23 paragraphs (2) and (3) and Article 24 of Law No. 2/2011 on Political Parties was challenged in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (31/10) afternoon. The Petitioner of Case No. 84/PUU-XV/2017 is Yahya Karomi, member of the United Development Party (PPP) of Cilacap Regency.

The Petitioner, represented by Hendrayana as legal counsel, claimed legal uncertainty due to the enactment of the articles challenged by the Petitioner. "The petitioner is an Indonesian citizen who has suffered constitutional harm due to legal uncertainty resulting from the provisions of the articles of the law being petitioned," explained Hendrayana to Constitutional Court Justice M.P. Sitompul.

Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2/2011 reads, “The organizational structure of political party officers resulted from the reorganization of political party officials at the central level shall be registered to the Ministry in no later than 30 (thirty) days after the formation of the new structure of political party officers.” Article 23 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2/2011 reads, “The new structure of political party officials as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be stipulated in a Ministerial Decree in no longer than 7 (seven) days after receiving the requirements.” Then Article 24 of the a quo law, "In the event of a dispute over the structure of a political party resulted from the highest forum of political party decision-making, the legalization of a change of structure cannot be done by the Minister until the dispute is resolved."

Hendrayana explained that the Petitioner questioned the authority of the Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia in the registration of changes of organizational structure of political parties at the central level, which is contradictory to the principle of legal certainty in the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia. According to the Petitioner, the granting of authority to the Minister of Justice and Human Rights to register the change of structure of a political party at the central level is not appropriate because the Minister of Law and Human Rights is an element of the government that has an interest to gain support from political parties.

"The abuses of authority that have been happening by the Minister of Law and Human Rights, such as those against the United Development Party, the Golkar Party, and the Indonesian Justice and Unity Party (PKPI) are not caused by the minister but by the Political Parties Law that gives the authority of registration of the change of political party structure at the national level. It could happen to other political parties in the future, causing legal uncertainty," said Hendrayana.

In addition, according to the Petitioner, the authority of political parties structure change at the central level is more appropriate to be given to an independent institution that has no interest in obtaining the support of political parties.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the arguments presented by the Petitioner, the Chairman of the Panel of Justices Manahan M.P. Sitompul observed the Petitioner’s petition format that seemed incomplete. "As is common in the petitions that we receive in the Constitutional Court, the articles must be mentioned clearly, the articles, and then the law. Here I see that the Petitioner only mentions the law," said Justice Manahan.

In addition, Justice Manahan commented on the Petitioner, in this case Yahya Karomis as a member of the United Development Party of Cilacap Regency. "[Is that understood?] Here as I read, it does not mention that you are a legitimate member. Usually it is proven, what is [the Petitioner’s] membership status? A member card, I have not seen it yet. Later, in the legal standing there is a correlation that the Petitioner is a member of a political party," said Justice Manahan.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reminded the Petitioner that in relation to the Petitioner’s petition, there are already three previous decisions, namely Decisions No. 45/PUU-XIV/2016, 35/PUU-XIV/2016, and 24/PUU-XV/2017 that are directly related to Article 23 and Article 24 of the Political Parties Law.

"Therefore, the Petitioner please explain the difference [from previous petitions] in terms of the basic arguments. The Petitioner filed these articles to the Constitutional Court. It should be checked whether the articles to be reviewed have been reviewed before. So it should be clear. The procedure of the Constitutional Court is very strict. Articles that have been decided cannot be petitioned again, except if the point of reference and the argument are different [from previous petitions]," said Justice Saldi. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---