Government statement delivered by Agus Hariadi in the judicial review of Mass Organization Law, Tuesday (13/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Mass organizations (ormas) that embrace, develop, and disseminate teachings or doctrines that are contrary to Pancasila can be directly penalized with administrative sanctions in the form of revocation of registration certificate by the Minister of Home Affairs or the revocation of legal entity status by the Minister of Law and Human Rights. This was conveyed by an expert staff of the Inter-Agencies Affairs of the Minister of Law and Human Rights, Agus Haryadi, in the judicial review hearing 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) on Tuesday (13/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In his statement representing the Government, Agus explained that there are several stages before deciding to impose sanctions on organizations that are considered violating the provisions. These stages include written warnings, suspension of activities, and/or revocation of registration certificate, or revocation of legal entity status.

The Ormas Law, Agus said, does not actually keep mass organizations from taking legal action. He asserted that mass organizations on which administrative sanctions in the form of legal entity revocation, or in other words dissolution, are imposed can still file a lawsuit to the Administrative Court (PTUN). "Thus, the due process of law is still guaranteed," Agus explained before the panel of justices led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat.

On the regulation of criminal sanctions, the Government also considered the a quo article political policy choice of criminal law that is built in order to run the jurisdiction of the state to maintain the integrity of the state from domestic threats. "So, the argument of the Petitioners that the enactment of the a quo law causing legal uncertainty is not accurate and is wrong," said Agus.

On the regulation on mass organizations, Agus explained that the Ormas Law implements the same provisions for every citizen and mass organization so that there is no discrimination in the provisions of the law.

On Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c along the phrase "or other doctrines" argued by the Petitioners, the Government is of the opinion that there is an adagium that means "the law always lags behind the event." This phrase, according to Agus, simply describes the emergence of the phrase "or other doctrines" in the a quo article. Doctrines that are contrary to Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution are limited only to atheism and communism; it will lag behind the new era that could lead to new ideas that contradict Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. "So it endangers the security of the nation. For this reason, there is space in the phrase "or other doctrines” as the a quo law can adjust to the development of law in society," Agus said.

The case No. 2/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah Indonesia, Yayasan Forum Silaturahmi Antar-Pengajian Indonesia, Perkumpulan Hidayatullah, and Munarman. The Petitioners argue that the Ormas Law is threatening the independence in assembling, associating, expressing thoughts and attitudes, according to the conscience because it eliminates the role of the court in imposing sanctions on the mass organizations. Consequently, at any time the government can subjectively revoke the legal entity status of the Petitioners. They also claim that Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c of the Ormas Law along the phrase "or other doctrines" having multiple interpretations and thus are subject to exploitation by the Government to trap mass organizations and their members allegedly opposing anti-Pancasila. Subsequently, Article 62 paragraph (3) of the Ormas Law may impose sanctions on mass organizations on the basis of mere subjectivity without any proven violation. Article 80A of the Ormas Law that determines a mass organization declared dissolved after the revocation of its legal entity status is considered by the Petitioners contradictory to the human rights in freedom of assembly and association. Therefore, the Petitioners request the revocation of the articles.

At the end of the session, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat said that the next session would be held on Thursday, February 22, 2018 with the agenda of hearing the statements of experts and witnesses of the Petitioners. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)