Ruling hearing of judicial review of the Mass Organization Law, Tuesday (20/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Based on the Justices’ Deliberation Meeting on March 13, 2018, the revocation or withdrawal of case No. 9/PUU-XVI/2018 is reasonable by the law. Therefore, based on the Constitutional Court Law, the petition cannot be re-filed. This was conveyed by Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman while reading Decision No. 9/PUU-XVI/2018 in the Constitutional Court\\'s verdict of the judicial review of Law No. 16/2017 on Mass Organization (Tuesday/20/3). "Declares, grants the request to withdraw the petition of the Petitioners," Justice Anwar said in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In the second hearing held on Tuesday (27/2), the Petitioners, Eggy Sudjana and Damai Hari Lubis who are represented by Benny Haris Nainggolan, withdrew their petition. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registrar of the Constitutional Court to issue a Cancellation Deed of Petition Registration and return the petition to the Petitioners.

The Petitioners reviewed Article 59 paragraph (4) letter c, Article 62 paragraph (3), Article 80A, and Article 82A paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Ormas Law. They 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 do not allow mass organizations that are to be dissolved a chance to defend themselves. Mass organizations should be given space for defense through legal process. To that end, the Petitioner requested the Panel of Constitutional Justices to revoke the enforcement of those articles. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)