Preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Political Party Law, Wednesday (5/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review of Law No. 2/2011 on Political Parties, on Wednesday (5/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Surya Kusmana, Siti Lidya Rahmi, and Lilis Agus Nuryati, members of one family, filed the case No. 69/PUU-XVI/2018.

In the petition, the Petitioners explained that the Political Party Law contradicts the Pancasila, which is the basis of the state as the legal representative of God\'s sovereignty included in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, the Political Party Law is also considered contrary to Article 29 paragraph (1) and Article 27 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners, who were present without legal counsel, claimed that the implementation of the a quo law had eliminated the constitutional rights of the Petitioners as citizens and as the next generation of the nation. The Petitioners also argued that Indonesia is not a state based on liberal sovereignty of the people, democracy, or political parties.

"Therefore, [we] request that the Court declare Law Number 2 of 2011 on Political Parties (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2011, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5189) contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding power," Siti said reading the petitum.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna asked for confirmation of the judicial review of the Political Party Law, whether material or formal. In addition, he questioned the Petitioners on the concept of constitutional rights. "Because there are some unclear terms. For example, there is the term \'legal association\' that does not refer [to any source] and constitutional rights based on the KBBI [(Great Dictionary of the Indonesian Language of the Language Center)]," he explained.

In addition, Justice Palguna also asked the Petitioners to provide an explanation of actual and potential losses due to the a quo law because there was no explanation related to this matter. According to him, the issue needs to be addressed first before reaching the subject matter.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat stated that the Petitioners\' petition was not perfect because there was no explanation about the posita. The Petitioners, he said, needed to explain the conflict between the a quo law and the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila. (Arif/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)