Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra with Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah opening a panel judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2011 on Political Parties, Tuesday (7/25/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Another material judicial review hearing of Article 23 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties took place in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, July 25, 2023. The case No. 69/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Eliadi Hulu, Saiful Salim, Andreas Laurencius, and Daniel Heri Pasaribu (Petitioners I-IV).

The Petitioners challenge Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Political Party Law, which reads, “The replacement of political party officials at each level shall be conducted in accordance with the Statute and Bylaws of the political party.”

Before the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, legal counsel Leonardo Siahaan conveyed the revisions to the petition. First, the Petitioners affirmed that the case is not ne bis in idem with case No. 53/PUU-XXI/2023.

“Article 78 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 explains the same material content of articles and phrases cannot be re-petitioned. In [case] No. 53, the subject matter is Article 2, while in ours it is Article 23. Even the object is different, Your Honors. This explains that we avoided ne bis in idem,” he stressed.

He also said proof had been provided to show that Andreas Laurencius (Petitioner III) and Daniel Heri Pasaribu (Petitioner IV) are political party members. This, he believes, shows their legal standing.

He also said that advocate organizations and political parties are similar but different in that the first is a professional organization while the second is a political organization recognized as the actors exercising democracy and popular sovereignty based on the 1945 Constitution. As actors of democracy, political parties are subject to limitation of tenure.

“We can see that the regulation of tenure, which is delegated through the statute/bylaws, has been set in the Political Pary Law, which is five years and a maximum of two terms, which will restrict certain [individuals] from using the opportunity to prolong their position of power,” Siahaan emphasized.

Also read: Term Limit of Party Chairpersons Questioned 

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, July 11, legal counsel Leonardo Siahaan said that Indonesia is a rule of law, so the tenure of chairpersons of political parties must be clearly regulated since political parties are central organizations that reflect democracy and are pillars of democracy.

He argued there is no legal certainty in a party’s articles of association of the term limits of the party’s chairperson. Ideally and based on general precedent, an organization’s chairperson be given a term of five years and a one-time reelection for the same position, either consecutively or not.

Therefore, , in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Political Party Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as “The regeneration of political party management at each level is carried out in accordance with the articles of association, specifically the chairperson or any other designation, the articles of association must regulate the term of office for 5 (five) years and a 1 (one) time reelection in the same position, either consecutively or not.” 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---