Panel revision hearing of the judicial review of the Foundation Law, Thursday (9/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the second judicial review hearing of Law Number 16 of 2001 on Foundations as amended by Law Number 28 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law Number 16 of 2001 on Foundations in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Thursday (9/5/2019). Petitioner of case No. 30/PUU-XVII/2019 argue that Article 53 paragraph (2) of the Foundation Law is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the revision hearing, Arjumulia, attorney for the Petitioner Al-Ikhwan Meruya Foundation as represented by Armen Kusumah, Sri Wuryatmi, and Saman, conveyed revision on the legal standing, constitutional loss, petitum, and background of the petition.

Whether administrators may or may not act on behalf of the foundation in and out of court, Arjumulia said, has been regulated in Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Foundation Law, and the appointment of administrators is included in the deed of modification. Next revision is on the constitutional loss due to the enactment of the article as it is interpreted that anyone, all people, or every individual can file a suit and request an investigation on the Petitioner. In addition, the phrase "interested third party" may give a party irrelevant to the Petitioner the legal standing to file a suit and request an investigation on the Petitioner.

“Therefore, the norm ‘interested third party’ should not be interpreted as anyone, all people, or every individual in filing a suit as it is limited by the elucidation to the a quo article that stipulates the party that has direct interest,” said Arjumulia before the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Manahan M.P. Sitompul.

The Petitioner argues that the phrase "interested third party" in Article 53 paragraph (2) of the Foundation Law is multi-interpretive because based on a concrete case of allegation experienced by the Petitioner before the a quo petition was submitted, there had been misinterpretation of the phrase. As a result, jamaah (congregation) in the broadest sense (anyone) can just examine matters related to Al-Ikhwan Meruya Foundation that allegedly had committed acts that harm the foundation or that neglected to carry out their duties as referred to in Article 53 paragraph (1) of the Foundation Law. The phrase "interested third party" must comply with Article 53 paragraph (3) of the Foundation Law. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 53 paragraph (2) of the Foundation Law contrary to the norms of protection and legal certainty as determined in 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as long as it is not interpreted directly or indirectly “congregation of the Al-Ikhwan Mosque who, according to their belief, take part in prospering the Al-Ikhwan Mosque."  (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)