Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah delivering the Court’s opinion at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2011 on Political Parties, Monday (7/31/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) handed down a ruling of the judicial review 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 Monday, July 31, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. In decision No. 69/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court ruled the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible.
In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, the Court stated that Petitioners I and II are individual Indonesian citizens. Petitioner II was also affiliated with and chaired the Indonesian Legal Student Association (Permahi) in 2021-2023, which is not a political party organization. In addition, both petitioners aspired to join a political party organization, despite not having made any concrete move to that end.
“In relation to the judicial review of the a quo Law, the object of the a quo petition is Article 23 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2011, which is a provision relating to the change of political party management structure based on the party’s statute/bylaws. In other words, the election of political party administrators at each level can only be carried out in accordance with the provisions in the party’s statute/bylaws. In this context, according to the Court, the qualifications of Petitioners I and II did not clearly and in detail describe their qualifications in relation to the alleged potential loss of constitutional rights arising from the enactment of Article 23 paragraph (1) of No. 2 of 2011,” Justice Guntur said.
Moreover, Petitioners I and II could not explain the causality between the potential constitutional impairment and the enactment of the norm petitioned, not could they explain the relation between their qualification as Indonesian citizens aspiring to join a political party and the enactment of Article 23 paragraph (1) of No. 2 of 2011. Even if they had made concrete steps to becoming party members, it would not have led them to hold that qualification.
“As such, both Petitioners I and II did not have the legal standing to file the a quo petition,” Justice Guntur added.
Upon observation on evidence presented by Petitioner III to explain his qualification, the Court only found evidence in the form of a photocopy of Decree of the Central Executive Board of Golongan Karya Party No. SKEP.45/DPPIGOLKARMI/2021 on the Ratification of the Composition and Personnel of the Golkar Party DPP’s Disaster Management Agency for 2019-2024 (Amendment Results). In addition, the legal facts revealed at hearings, the Petitioner could not show any membership card of the Golkar Party. This means that the decree was insufficient to prove that he was a member, let alone an administrator of the Golkar Party. Moreover, the name listed in the decree in question was different from the name listed by the Petitioner in the a quo petition and the ID card of Petitioner III. Thus, the Court was not convinced that Petitioner III was a political party member, let alone the management of one. Thus, Petitioner III had no legal standing to file the petition.
Justice Guntur then asserted that even though Petitioner IV declared to be a member of the National Democratic Party (Nasdem), as reflected by his membership card, he could not provide evidence as one of the party’s administrators nor could he prove conclusively that he was one and/or was a member who had the right to elect and/or be elected as party chairperson as stipulated in the party’s statute/bylaws or other regulations. Therefore, he had no legal standing to file the petition.
Based on those explanations, the Court ruled that the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the petition and, thus, the Court did not consider the petition’s subject matter.
Concurring Opinion
For this case, one justice—Justice Arief Hidayat—had a concurring opinion. He argued that a political party’s statute serves as its constitution, stipulating all of its rules and fundamental principles. Meanwhile, its bylaws serve similar to a law, which is the explanation of the statute. Therefore, the legal political design in the Party Law gives the party space to determine its own rules in its statute/bylaws, which are the highest law and its explanation.
“The tenure of a political party’s chairperson should be regulated in its statute/bylaws, following the needs and conscience of all party administrators and members without any legislature’s intervention. This does not negate democracy in the party’s structure since democracy in political parties exist in its national meeting or any other name, whose rules are regulated in its statute/bylaws as the highest laws that the members must comply with,” Justice Arief emphasized.
Also read:
Term Limit of Party Chairpersons Questioned
Petitioners Revises Petition on Term Limit of Party Chairpersons
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.”
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 was 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 is 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.
Monday, July 31, 2023 | 18:49 WIB 301