---

Statement of the House of Representatives represented by Commission III member Arteria Dahlan in the judicial review hearing of Law on Mass Organizations, Tuesday (6/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

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) provides fair legal recognition, guarantee, protection, and certainty and equal treatment before the law for mass organizations. This was conveyed by member of the Commission III of the House of Representatives, Arteria Dahlan, in the follow-up session of the Ormas Law, Tuesday (6/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In his statement on behalf of the House of Representatives, Arteria explained that the Ormas Law still provides protection for freedom of association, assembly, and opinion for the people. This, he added, because the a quo law is the embodiment of Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution.

"On the basis of Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution, the Ormas Law was created to elaborate that guarantee of protection and legal certainty to all mass organizations in carrying out their organizations must be in accordance with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution," he said in response to the petition filed by Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah Indonesia, Yayasan Forum Silaturahmi Antar- Pengajian Indonesia, and Perkumpulan Hidayatullah.

Furthermore, Arteria stated that the Ormas Law accommodates the review of the decision to revoke the status of legal entities or registration of a mass organization. He explained that in revoking the legal status of a deviant organization, the government must meet the requirements contained in the Ormas Law. According to him, this proves that the Petitioners’ assumption claiming the government’s arbitrary revocation of a legal body of a mass organization is not accurate.

"The decision-making process to revoke the status of legal entity or registration of a mass organization is based on the requirements described in the Ormas Law, so it is not appropriate [that the Petitioners assumed that] the decision to impose the sanction of dissolution is based solely on individual discretion or personal assessment," Arteria said before the hearing led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

Matching Facts

On the same occasion, Yayasan Penanganan Hukum Indonesia dan Pembela Pancasila legal aid foundation (LBH) as the Relevant Party of petition No. 2/PUU-XVI/2018. Pitri Indrianingtyas representing Yayasan Penanganan Hukum Indonesia denied the Petitioners\' argument that sanctions on mass organizations are subjective. She considered sanctions in the form of a decision to revoke the status of a legal entity by the Government by using contrarius actus is based on facts and legal considerations is reasonable. "So, it does not eliminate the authority of the courts and state administration to review the validity of the decision," Pitri said.

Meanwhile, LBH Pembela Pancasila, represented by Teddi Andriansyah, explained that there no constitutional rights of the Petitioners were directly impaired by the issuance of the Ormas Law. He added that if the Petitioners want to form a mass organization or have become board member of a legal entity in the form of association, there is no prohibition as long as the principle and its activities are in accordance with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

In addition, Teddi insisted that the Ormas Law do not rule out due process of law. "In fact it imposes strict sanctions on mass organizations whose principles and activities are in conflict with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution," said Teddi.

In addition, Teddi observed that the basis of the issuance of the Ormas Law is very clear, namely to protect the sovereignty of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) because the state is obliged to maintain national unity. Substantially, he added, the Ormas Law has also meets the criteria of good legislation.

Meanwhile, Teddi found the phrase "or other doctrines" in the Ormas Law theoretically being true and absolutely necessary as a legal term. "In order to anticipate sociological developments of society, both nationally and globally, whose doctrines can also grow uncontrollably and destabilize the sovereignty of the state and the unity of the nation in the future," he explained.

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 mass organizations. Therefore, the Petitioners requested the revocation of Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c, Article 62 paragraph (3), and Article 80A of the Ormas Law that was passed into law in October.

Before closing the session, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief, said that the next hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. to hear the statements of expert and witness for the Petitioners, expert for the Government, and expert for the Relevant Party. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti) 

---