Petitioners Surya Kusmana and Siti Lidya Rahmi attending the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Law No. 2/2011 on Political Parties, Tuesday (30/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The petition filed by one family on the judicial review of Law No. 2/2011 on Political Parties was deemed vague by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Court could not accept the petition No. 69/PUU-XVI/2018. “Declares the Petitioners’ petition not acceptable,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the ruling hearing on Tuesday afternoon (30/10).

In the opinion of the Court read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Court had held a hearing for the revision of the petition on September 18, 2018, but the Petitioners\' petition remained unclear. In the cover of the revised petition, the petition was entitled “Request for Judicial Review of Law Number 2 of 2011 on Political Parties/Democracy/People\'s Sovereignty/Liberalism: Communism-Secularism-Secularization/Separating Religion from the State Against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.” Meanwhile, the subject matter of the petition was entitled "Petition for the Judicial Review of Law Number 2 of 2011 on Political Parties." In the description of the petition, the Petitioners stated that they had submitted a "formal review," but in the description of their petition the Petitioners did not elaborate on the reasons for formal review.

Justice Suhartoyo added that if the Petitioners\' description on page 17 of the petition revision was considered the reason for formal review, the description concerned only contained citation of Article 4 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Regulation Number 6/PMK/2005; Article 2, Article 3, and Article 43 of Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Formation of the Legislation; as well as Articles 20 and 21 of the 1945 Constitution, without further explanation or argument.

Furthermore, he added, in the petitum the Petitioners requested that the Court "declare Law Number 2 of 2011 concerning Political Parties contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not have binding legal force" which did not signify the petitum of petition for formal review, which should have contained a request that the Court declare the formation of a law, in casu the Political Party Law, not fulfilling the provisions under the 1945 Constitution, as referred to in Article 51 paragraph (3) letter a of the Constitutional Court Law.

Conversely, such a petitum was considered a request for material review, as the Petitioners had not provided sufficient arguments, that is, a clear argument about why a material contained in paragraphs, articles, and/or parts of the law, in casu the Political Party Law, had been deemed contrary to the 1945 Constitution, as referred to in Article 51 paragraph (3) letter b of the Constitutional Court Law. "In relation to this, the Petitioners only provided a summary elaboration and it was not clear what it meant," he said.

The Petitioners are Surya Kusmana, Siti Lidya Rahmi, and Lilis Agus Nuryati. They had previously argued that the Political Party Law contradicted 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. They also considered it contrary to Article 29 paragraph (1) and Article 27 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. They had 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 had also argued that Indonesia was not a state based on liberal sovereignty of the people, democracy, or political parties. (Arif/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)