Benny Haris Nainggolan as attorney explaining the principal points of the petition in the judicial review hearing of the Law on Community Organizations, Monday (13/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Law No. 16/2017 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Law) was reviewed materially once again at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (13/2). This time, the petition No. 9/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by Eggy Sudjana and Damai Hari Lubis, both lawyers. Both Petitioners review Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c, Article 62 paragraph (3), Article 80A, and Article 82A paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Ormas Law.

The Petitioners, represented by Benny Haris Nainggolan as attorney, argued that the articles being reviewed are multi-interpretive and subject to subjective interpretation by the government. For example, in Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c of the Ormas Law, Pancasila can be interpreted subjectively and unilaterally by the government. Article 62 paragraph (3) and Article 80A of the Ormas Law does not allow mass organizations that are to be dissolved a chance to defend themselves. Benny continued, mass organizations should be given space for defense through legal process.

" Article 82A paragraphs (1) and (2) are contradictory to the principle of legal certainty of criminal responsibility, that is, a person may be punished even if they did not directly violate provisions," he said in a session chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Panel of Constitutional Justices revoke those articles.

Justices’ Advice

In this preliminary hearing, the Panel of Justices found errors in the format used by the Petitioners. Instead of using the format intended for petitioners, the petition was submitted to the Constitutional Court in the application form for the Relevant Party. Benny stated that at first the Petitioners had wanted to volunteer as a Relevant Party, but decided to change position to Petitioners. Justice Anwar as chairman of the session requested that the format of the petition be revised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna reminded that this law is being revised. He suggested that the Petitioners wait for the results of the revision so as not to waste effort. On the other hand, he asked the Petitioners to separate the descriptions of their legal standing and the principal reason for the petition.

"The focus of the reason for petition is proving the unconstitutionality of the law for that you filed for review or the provisions of this law. The legal standing emphasizes that the Petitioners have a constitutional right. That constitutional right is what you think is harmed by the enactment of this law," he explained.

Then, Constitutional Justice Aswanto asked the Petitioners to fix their power of attorney. "Fix it in accordance with what you want, to not be a Relevant Party but Petitioners. So, the clause in your power of attorney must be synchronized," he said. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)