Plenary ruling hearing of judicial review of Ormas Law on Tuesday (12/12) n the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) could not accept the seven petitions for judicial review of the Ormas Perppu because it had lost object. With the enactment of the Ormas Perppu as Law No. 16/2017 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation on Law No. 17/2013 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Perppu) on October 24, 2017, the object of petition of the Petitioners disappeared, so the Petitioners\' petitions had lost object. Ruling of Decisions No. 38/PUU-XV/2017, 39/PUU-XV/2017, 41/PUU-XV/2017, 48/PUU-XV/2017, 49/PUU-XV/2017, 52/PUU-XV/2017, and 58/PUU-XV/2017 took place on Tuesday (12/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

"The verdict hears, declares the Petitioners\' petitions cannot be accepted," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat in the presence of the eight other Constitutional Justices.

On the principal issue of Petition 38/PUU-XV/2017, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, reading the opinion of the Court, stated that the Petitioner had basically grouped their arguments into two parts, related to formal and material review. However, the Petitioner’s petition was only concerned with formal review. The Petitioner did not give any explanation on their legal standing in the formal review. Therefore, the substance of the posita and petitum of the a quo petition became asynchronous so that the petition became blurred. "Considering that since the petition of the Petitioner has lost the object, the principal issue of the petition cannot be further considered," explained Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna in the hearing attended only by Petitioner of Case No. 49/PUU-XV/2017.

No Legal Standing

On the same occasion, the Constitutional Court also decided on Case No. 41/PUU-XV/2017 petitioned by the Aliansi Nusantara and Case 58/PUU-XV/2017 petitioned by Eggi Sudjana and Damai Hari Lubis who work as lawyers and mass organization activists. The Court considered the two cases not having legal standing. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)