Yahya Karomi, principal petitioner, and his legal counsel listening to the verdict of the judicial review of the Law on Political Parties on Wednesday (9/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided not to accept the petition for judicial review of Law No. 2/2011 on Political Parties filed by Yahya Karomi. "The verdict heard, declared the Petitioner\'s petition unacceptable," said Plenary Chairman Anwar Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justices in the ruling hearing of Decision No. 84/PUU-XV/2017, Wednesday (9/5). 

The Petitioners questioned Article 23 paragraphs (2) and (3) as well as Article 24 of the General Elections Law. The Petitioner felt aggrieved by the dualism of leadership in the PPP due to the decision of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. Hendrayana continued, in issuing a decree letter related to the problem of dualism experienced by PPP, the Ministry was supposed to consider the requirements of the petition and internal issues of the party. However, in the case of PPP, the Ministry issued the decree without considering internal issues of the party. This is considered to be detrimental to the Petitioner. The Petitioner argued that there was legal uncertainty due to the enactment of the articles. 

In the opinion of the Court read by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, after observing the evidence and the facts of the hearing, the Petitioner was proved as a member of a political party, namely the United Development Party (PPP). The Court in several previous decisions has considered and decided upon the legal status of political parties as well as the members whose political parties have members in the Parliament and participated in the discussion and mutual agreement in the formation of the law as Petitioners in judicial reviews. 

However, based on the consideration of Decision of the Constitutional Court Numbers 7/PUU-XIII/2015, 35/PUU-XIV/2016, and 45/PUU-XIV/2016, the Court considered that the Petitioner did not have the legal status to request the a quo judicial review, either individually or representing the DPC PPP of Cilacap Regency. 

"In addition, there is no clarity as to whether in the Petitioner’s concrete case there was an issue of the clarity of the Petitioner’s membership status in the a quo party. That is because as the Petitioner himself had revealed, the Minister of Law and Human Rights has issued a decision regarding the approval of the PPP stewardship. So, according to the Court, there is no clear description of the causal relationship between the norms submitted for review with the loss or potential loss of the Petitioner with the enactment of the law petitioned for review," explained Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra who read the opinion of the Court.

Based on the whole considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has no legal standing in the a quo petition for judicial review. Justice Saldi added that although the Court had the authority to hear the a quo petition, since the Petitioner did not have the legal standing to file the a quo petition, the Court did not consider the principal issue of the petition. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)