---

Munarman as Principal Petitioner during media interview session after the judicial review hearing of Ormas Law on Monday (15/1) at the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

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) was reviewd materially in the Constitutional Court on Monday (15/1). Dewan Da’wah Islamiyah Indonesia, Yayasan Forum Silaturrahmi Antar-Pengajian Indonesia, the Hidayatullah association, and Munarman who is an individual citizen, as well as administrators and members of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) are registered as Petitioners for Case No. 2/PUU-XVI/2018. 

The Islamic mass organizations and individual citizens claim that Article 1 points 6 through 21, Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c along the phrase "or other doctrines", Article 62 paragraph (3), Article 80A and Article 82A of the Ormas Law are contrary to the 1945 Constitution. In the preliminary hearing led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman accompanied by Constitutional Justices Aswanto and I Dewa Gede Palguna, Munarman as one of the Petitioners presented five reasons for the Petitioners\\' petition. 

First, Article 1 points 6 to 21 of the Ormas Law is considered threatening the constitutional rights of the Petitioners on freedom of assembly, association, expression of thoughts and attitudes, according to conscience, for eliminating the role of the court in imposing sanctions on mass organizations. Consequently, any time the government can subjectively revoke the legal entity status of Petitioners I–IV, whereas Petitioner V will have their mass organization certificate revoked without being legally proven guilty of their mistake and money-related violation. Secondly, according to Munarman, Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c of the Ormas Law along the phrase "or other doctrines" are considered by the Petitioners to have multiple interpretations so they are subject to exploitation by the Government to trap mass organizations and their members allegedly opposing anti-Pancasila. 

"So, this is very subjective because if considered not in line with those in power, it will be easy to dissolve mass organizations that are not in line. We do not want the revocation of the whole articles; just that phrase," said Munarman accompanied by Nasrulloh Nasution, Damai Hari Lubis, Sumadi Atmadja, and other attorneys of the Petitioners. 

Third, Article 62 paragraph (3) of the Ormas Law may impose sanctions on mass organizations on the basis of mere subjectivity without any proven violation. Fourth, Article 80A of the Ormas Law that determines a mass organization declared dissolved after the revocation of its legal entity status is considered contradictory to the human rights in freedom of assembly and association. The Petitioners claim a mass organization cannot be dissolved only by revoking its certificate or its legal entity status. Fifth, Munarman explained that Article 82A paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Ormas Law that has multiple interpretations and are not precise can only entrap the Petitioners only because of their status as administrators and members of mass organizations. "Therefore, based on the arguments that have been described, the Petitioners request that the Court grant the petition of the Petitioners," Munarman said. 

Justices’ Advice

With respect to the Petitioners\\' explanation, Justice Palguna advised that the constitutional impairment described by Petitioners who are legal entities and individuals be separated even though at the end each Petitioner has reinforced it by their arguments. In addition, in relation to the a quo law that is still being revised, Justice Palguna provided technical consideration for the Petitioners. 

"The law is still being revised, and if for example this argument is part of the section being revised, how will it be? This is just a technical consideration. There is the possibility that [this law] will change, so why don’t you wait [until it is final]?" Justice Palguna suggested. 

Justice Aswanto emphasized that the principal issue of the petition be elaborated again so that the Court can see more clearly the constitutional impairment of the Petitioners. "On the principal issue of the petition, please elaborate it with theories or ideas that reinforce the arguments of the petition," he advised. 

At the end of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Anwar reminded the Petitioners to revise their petition by Monday, January 29, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the latest. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---