---

Muhammad Sahal as attorney of the Petitioners explaining the principals of their petition during the judicial review hearing of the Law on Mass Organizations, Monday (26/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Muhammad Hafidz and Abda Khair Mufti filed a judicial review of Article 80A of Law No. 16/2017 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2/2017 on the Amendment of Law No. 17/2013 on Mass Organizations into a Law to the Constitutional Court on Monday (26/11). The case No. 94/PUU-XV/2017 was led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman accompanied by Constitutional Justices Maria Farida Indrati and I Dewa Gede Palguna.

In this preliminary hearing, the Petitioners through Muhammad Sahal as attorney stated that, as workers who have actively been fighting for the rights and interests of Indonesian workers, both together in workers’ union or as individuals, they feel that they have an interest in the implementation of this Mass Organization Law. "The Petitioners also would like to form an organization that concerns with the fate of community members in productive ages who do not have jobs so as to fight for their rights collectively, as stipulated in Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution," Sahal explained to the Panel of Justices in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

According to the Petitioners, on October 24, 2017, the House of Representatives (DPR) approved the Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2/2017 on the Amendment of Law No. 17/2013 of the Republic of Indonesia on Mass Organizations into a Law. The Mass Organization Law contains the provisions of Article 80A which reads, "Revocation of legal entity status as referred to in Article 61 paragraph (1) letter c and paragraph (3) letter b are simultaneously declared invalid based on this Government Regulation in Lieu of Law."

"Therefore, the provisions of Article 80A of the Mass Organization Law are contradictory to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," Sahul explained, accompanied by the two principal petitioners.

In addition, the Petitioners also claimed that the provisions of article 80A of the Mass Organization Law are also related to the revocation of legal entities of mass organizations through dissolution without due process due of the law. This, according to the Petitioners, has ignored the law as the principle of the state of Indonesia and contrary to the principle of upholding the law with no exception.

"Therefore, Article 80A of the Mass Organization Law has eliminated the principle of due process of the law in the previous provisions of the dissolution of mass organizations and the provisions of the a quo article proved to be the only law that have robbed the authority of the judiciary," Sahul explained.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the petition of the Petitioners, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna requested that the Petitioners reinforce their legal standing by quoting the norms being review. "It is necessary to include the norms being reviewed so when arguing will be seen more clearly the rationality of the potential constitutional impairment argued by the Petitioners," explained Justice Palguna.

In addition, Justice Palguna also requested that the Petitioners make evidence or explanation for the efforts or moves of the Petitioners who were forming mass organizations where the a quo provisions would potentially harm the Petitioners. "For example, there is evidence that you visited a notary to form a mass organization as part of the explanation in the petition, so that the petition will be stronger," explained Justice Palguna.

Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati also gave some important notes about the evidence presented by the Petitioners, that is deemed cursory and lacking power in the case filing. In this case, Justice Maria saw that there was no law being utilized as a point of reference and there was no definite connection between the conflict of the Mass Organization Law and the Workers Union Law petitioned by the Petitioners. This made Judge Maria hesitant about the power of the Petitioners\' argument. "Please write the number of the law so that there is a clear comparison and the reasons for the petition can be clearer. This is important for the legal standing of the Petitioners," Justice Maria asked.

At the end of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Anwar conveyed that the panel of justices will give time until Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10.00 a.m. to the Petitioners to revise their petition for the next hearing. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---