Albert Ola Masan Setiawan Muda, Risky Kurniawan, and Otniel Raja Maruli Situmorang (Petitioners) at the panel preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of the Political Party Law, Monday (2/12/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A provision on the temporary suspension of political parties as stipulated in Article 48 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties as amended by Law No. 2 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties has been challenged to the Constitutional Court (MK). The case No. 15/PUU-XXII/2024 was petitioned by Teja Maulana Hakim, a university student. The preliminary hearing took place on Monday, February 12, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

In the petition, the Petitioner challenges Article 48 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Party Law, which reads, “Any violation of the provisions referred to in Article 40 paragraph (2) shall be subject to administrative sanctions in the form of temporary suspension of the Political Party concerned in accordance with its level by the district court for a maximum of 1 (one) year,” and “Political Parties that have been temporarily suspended as referred to in paragraph (2) and commits another violation to the provisions referred to in Article 40 paragraph (2) shall be dissolved by a decision of the Constitutional Court.”

Before the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, Albert Ola Masan Setiawan Muda explained on behalf of the Petitioner that the a quo norms have been petitioned and ruled in Decision No. 53/PUU-IX/2011 with. Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (3), Article 28C paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as touchstones. The current petition is not ne bis in idem since it has a different reason, despite the same touchstones, i.e. Article 1 paragraph (2) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, as emphasized in Article 78 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2023.

Albert explained that the Petitioner reasons that political party disbandment through the Constitutional Court is limited. He also believes that Article 40 paragraph (2) of the Party Law does not explicitly mention party disbandment due to members who commit criminal acts of corruption while in public office. He also asserts that the word “and” in “Political Parties shall be prohibited from: a. conducting activities that are contrary to the 1945 Constitution and statutory laws and regulations; or” in Article 40 paragraph (2) of the Party Law has created issues, so the word “or” should be used instead. He believes the word “and” in the a quo norms is more appropriate to use for the petition for the disbandment, not temporary suspension, of political parties.

The Petitioner believes Indonesia recognizes and guarantees the protection of its citizens’ freedom of association and assembly through Article 28 and Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. “Any violations of Article 40 paragraph (2) of the Party Law is very dangerous and threatens the nation’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity and thus it is very urgent to eradicate it immediately. Consequently, it requires extraordinary types of sanction and implementation, that is, direct dissolution of the political party in question, without any suspension first. This is also explained by Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution,” Albert explained.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare 48 paragraph (2) of the Party Law unconstitutional and not legally binding while 48 paragraph (3) conditionally unconstitutional if not interpreted as “Political Parties that have committed violations of the provisions as referred to in Article 40 paragraph (2) shall be disbanded with a decision by the Constitutional Court.”

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said the Petitioner has not elaborated on his constitutional impairment. She said he must explain whether the loss is actual or potential.

“You have not elaborated on the impairment of constitutional rights. What is the constitutional impairment due to the enforcement of the two norms? There are five conditions for constitutional impairment. Are the rights accurate? Is it accurate that losses have occurred due to something, which is actual or potential. You can elaborate it specifically,” she stressed.

Next, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra asked the Petitioner to explain his legal standing and elaborate the reason to file the petition. “This hasn’t been shown in your petition. Next, the reasons for your petition, the first point says that the reason is different, while the legal basis has been explained. It’s not too important. The reason is different, but you didn’t mention it here,” he said.

Before adjourning the hearing, Justice Saldi announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, February 26, 2024 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
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.

---