---

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams receiving Law Faculty students of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, Friday (21/12) in the Delegation Room of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The issue of dissolution of political parties became a topic of interest when the Constitutional Court (MK) received a visit of 96 law students from UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, Friday (21/12).

A student named Perdana asked why only the Government may request the dissolution of political parties while individual citizens cannot do it. Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams stated that a political party could be dissolved for several reasons. First, if its principles are contrary to Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. Only the Government can file such petition, and may be represented by the prosecutor\'s office. "So far, the Constitutional Court has never received such a petition," he explained.

Regarding the reason of the Government being Petitioner, Justice Wahiddudin did not want to comment further because it was in conflict with his position as the Constitutional Court justice. He also invited Court researcher Bisariyadi to deliver his an academic view on the issue.

Bisar stated that, as common sense, the licensor for the formation of political parties is the Government, so when they must be disbanded, it can be only done by the Government as well. However, he said, this was not without risk because a case in Turkey had proven to be a negative example.

"[Many political parties in Turkey have been dissolved]. So, for example, if there are political parties that are perceived as threatening the Government, the Constitutional Court will dissolve them," he explained in the Court Delegation Room. This means that this authority has the potential to be distorted, as is proven in Turkey, when the Government "conditioned" the Constitutional Court for their political interests.

However, he also revealed a trend change, that is, the mechanism of dissolving political parties was made more complicated, in line with freedom and respect for the right of every person to politics and opinion. There were also questions regarding the mechanism for the selection of Constitutional Court justices by the House of Representatives, President, and the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams stated that each institution had a different mechanism. Technically, there is no mechanism within certain regulations such as presidential regulations (Perpres) or government regulations (PP).

"For example, in the Supreme Court, the model is direct appointment of career judges. Whereas by the House and the President, sometimes it is by forming a selection committee (pansel), but not necessarily. After the selection committee [nominates candidates], [the justice is usually selected from those candidates]," he said.

On the other hand, Justice Wahiddudin also explained a little related to the role and function of the Constitutional Court in state administration. The Constitutional Court, he said, had four authorities and one obligation under the 1945 Constitution. "The authority of the Constitutional Court is examining laws against the 1945 Constitution, deciding on authority disputes of state institutions whose authorities are granted by the 1945 Constitution, deciding on the dissolution of political parties, and deciding on election results disputes. The obligation of the Constitutional Court is to make decisions related to alleged violations committed by the president and/or vice president," he said.

Justice Wahiduddin also stated that the Constitutional Court was a transparent institution so the public could oversee the actions of this institution from all sides. The Constitutional Court, he said, applied transparency and openness to the public through easy access to information for the community, for example through information posted on its website. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---