Principal Petitioner La Ode Saafi and legal counsel Hamalin in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law Number 16 of 2001 on Foundations, Tuesday (30/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court gave a verdict on the judicial review of Law No. 16/2001 on Foundations that the petition by Director of the Mandala Waluya Foundation from Kendari, La Ode Saafi, could not be accepted. The verdict was read by Chief Justice Anwar Usman before the other constitutional justices during the ruling hearing, Tuesday (30/10). 

The Petitioner of case No. 65/PUU-XVI/2018 believed that the foundation is an association established by capital owners who intended to channel their assets to those in need by establishing a forum to channel their assets through a foundation solely for social, humanitarian, and religious purposes. Those capital owners do not expect rewards, salary, or wages, because those founders are already affluent. However, according to the Petitioner, referring to the provisions of Article 1 paragraphs (3) and (4) of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower, the foundation employees as "worker" have the right to salary, wages, compensation from the foundation, and the foundation as "employer" is obliged to provide salary, wages, rewards to the foundation staff as workers. If this is ignored by the employer, then it clearly violates human rights. 

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams who read out the legal considerations said that the Petitioner was the Director of the Board of Trustees of the Mandala Waluya Foundation, Kendari. However, the Petitioner in his petition did not specifically explain the losses suffered due to the enactment of Article 3 paragraph (2), Article 5 paragraph (1), and Article 70 of the Law on Foundations. He only elaborated by referring to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015. 

Although in the a quo petition the Petitioner did not explicitly explain his constitutional loss by the enactment of Article 3 paragraph (2), Article 5 paragraph (1), and Article 70 of the Law on Foundations, considering the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015 that gives legal standing to the Director of the Foundation\'s Board of Trustees, this can be used as a reference for the Court to give legal standing to the Petitioner. Whereas, the existence or absence of constitutional loss can be proven along with the subject matter of the petition. Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioner had the legal standing to file the a quo petition. 

After studying the Petitioner\'s argument and carefully examined the Petitioner\'s evidence, the Court was of the opinion that Article 5 paragraph (1) and Article 70 of the Law on Foundations are the objects of the a quo petition, because the substance is the same as petition No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015, the Court declared its position and gave its verdict in the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015 dated August 26, 2015, rejecting the Petitioner\'s petition. 

Based on the consideration of the Court in the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015 above, because the constitutionality issue of the articles petitioned for review by the Petitioner along with the arguments that form the basis of the Petitioner\'s petition are the same, the legal considerations in the case mutatis mutandis apply to the legal considerations in the a quo case. 

Regarding Article 3 paragraph (2) of the Law on Foundations that was also petitioned for review by the Petitioner but not reviewed in the petition No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015, according to the Court, Article 3 paragraph (2) of the Foundation Law that reads, "Every Foundation is not allowed to distributed proceeds of business activities to patrons, executives and supervisors" has the same substance as Article 5 of the Law on Foundations, which regulates whether foundations may share the proceeds of their business activities with patrons, executives and supervisors. 

Therefore, the Court\'s consideration in the case No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015 is not different from the spirit that is the essence of the norm of Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Foundation Law on the prohibition of distributing the proceeds of the foundation\'s business activities to patrons, executives and supervisors. Thus, the spirit and nature of the Court\'s legal considerations in Case Decision No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015 mutatis mutandis also apply to the legal considerations in the a quo case.

Based on all the legal considerations above, all legal considerations of the a quo case in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-XIII/2015 mutatis mutandis apply. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)