Principal petitioner Abda Khair Mufti in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Mass Organization Law, Thursday (13/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition filed by Muhammad Hafidz Abda Khair Mufti on the judicial review of Article 80A of Law No. 16/2017 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2/2017 on the Amendment of Law No. 17/2013 on Mass Organizations (Ormas Law). The ruling hearing of Decision Number 94/PUU-XV/2017 led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman took place on Thursday (13/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

The Petitioners had submitted a petition by arguing as members of the community they wished to exercise their rights to form, become administrators, and carry out ormas activities of the “Perkumpulan Tuna Karya untuk Konstitusi (Perak) Indonesia." According to them, the potential loss of their constitutional rights would not occur if there was due process of law by the judicial institutions whose decisions have permanent legal force in Article 80A of the Mass Organization Law. 

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, the Court was of the opinion that the norm reviewed by the Petitioners (Article 80A of the Mass Organization Law) is related to the dissolution of mass organization as well as revocation of its legal entity status, so those who are actually or at least potentially harmed by the enactment of this norm are mass organizations that are legal entities or Indonesian citizens who are part of the management or membership of established mass organizations. Meanwhile, the Petitioners, Justice Saldi added, were not a mass organization and not part of the management or membership of a mass organization. 

"The norm of the a quo Ormas Law does not hinder, let alone ban, Indonesian citizens from forming a mass organization or joining one, whether incorporated or not. The norm of the a quo Mass Organization Law serves to regulate the revocation of the legal entity status of a mass organization and well as the dissolution of the concerned organization. Thus, the mass organization in question already exists and is incorporated. Therefore, there is no doubt for the Court that the conditions for potential losses which, according to logical reasoning, can be ensured to occur will not be fulfilled," Justice Saldi said. 

Justice Saldi added that the Petitioners were individual citizens and not mass organizations. Even though it is true that one day the Petitioners might form a mass organization, it did not necessarily give them the legal standing to review Article 80A of the Ormas Law as long as the organization was not a legal entity and its legal entity is not revoked based on the reasons as set out in the Ormas Law. 

"Based on the above considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners do not have a legal standing to act as Petitioners in the a quo petition. Even if they had legal standing, quod non, it turns out that the subject of the petition is unreasonable according to law so the rest of the petition is not considered," Justice Saldi concluded. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)