The Government statement was conveyed by Widodo Sigit Pujianto as Head of the Legal Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the judicial review of Ormas Law on Wednesday (10/1) the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Ormas Perppu that was passed into law is deemed necessary to ensure freedom of assembly, which is part of human rights. Therefore, the state should be able to regulate the individual and collective freedom of citizens with moral considerations to safeguard the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) and the growing ethics of mass organizations in the social life of the community. 

This was conveyed by the Head of Legal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs Widodo Sigit Pujianto in a follow-up session of the 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 (Ormas Law), Wednesday (10/1). The hearing of case No. 94/PUU-XV/2017 were filed by Muhammad Hafidz and Abda Khair Mufti.

In his explanation, Widodo stated that the Ormas Law was passed into law in order to protect and enforce the law on the activities, behavior, or aspirations of mass organizations that could cause or potentially lead to hate speech, which could result in chaos that is difficult to overcome by the security personnel. "To overcome this, it is necessary to have an a quo law aimed at protecting the sovereignty of Indonesia based on Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, as well as maintaining the unity of the nation," Widodo explained before the Panel of Justices led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat. 

Widodo then went on to argue that the Ormas Law is part of the state\'s responsibility to create the law according to the characteristics of the state and to benefit the people. Then the state can create the law to anticipate the development of ideologies that contradict Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, by from mass organizations that could lead to the disintegration of the nation. 

In addition, the Ormas Law was formed to ensure the right of freedom of association and assembly of citizens according to the 1945 Constitution. The existence of mass organizations, Widodo continued, one of which is the realization of collective awareness of citizens in development, and must be organized so that it remains a positive energy for the life of the nation and state. "Therefore, the state is obliged to acknowledge their existence and ensure the survival of mass organizations," Widodo said. 

In response to the Petitioners’ argument that claims the granting of authority to dissolve mass organizations exceeding the Government’s authority, the Government holds that the a quo law is in line with the Administrative Law. In addition, Widodo stressed that the dissolution of mass organizations is part of law enforcement and the Government\'s efforts to provide legal protection for the citizens. 

"Thus, the Government is authorized to dissolve mass organizations and, in the sanction mechanism it has passed through the stages in accordance with the rules of law, and the mass organizations that are sanctioned can still file a lawsuit in the administrative court," explained Widodo. 

At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat stated that the next session will be held on Thursday, January 18, 2018 to hear the statement from the Petitioners’ Expert. 

In their petition, the Petitioners declared themselves activists who had been actively fighting for the rights and interests of Indonesian workers, either collaboratively in trade unions or individually. They are concerned about the implementation of the Ormas Law. The Petitioners also intend to form a mass organization that have concern for the fate of unemployed citizens in productive ages in order to fight for their rights collectively as regulated in Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, the Petitioners also claimed that the stipulation of Article 80A of the Ormas Law is also related to the dissolutions of mass organizations as legal bodies, without due process of law. This, according to the Petitioners, has disregarded the law as the principle of the state of Indonesia and is contrary to the principle of indiscriminately upholding the law. (Sri Pujianti/LA/ Yuniar Widiastuti)