The Constitutional Court (MK) did not accept the request for review regarding the rules for freezing political parties (political parties) as regulated in Article 48 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2008 concerning Political Parties (UU Political Parties). One of the requests submitted by a student named Teja Maulana was that political parties might be immediately dissolved by the Constitutional Court if they were proven to violate the 1945 Constitution, statutory regulations or endanger the integrity of the state.
“Declaring that the Petitioner’s petition cannot be accepted,” said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Suhartoyo, reading out the verdict, in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Wednesday (20/3).
In the legal considerations delivered by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant’s status as a law student was not sufficient to ensure that there was a specific and actual loss of constitutional rights.
“The Court considers that the description regarding the perceived loss of constitutional rights experienced by the Petitioner has no causal relationship with the enactment of the norms of Article 40 paragraph (2) letter b, Article 48 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of Law 2/2008,” explained Enny.
On that basis, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s application unacceptable. However, there were different opinions or dissenting opinions from three constitutional judges, namely Suhartoyo, Saldi Isra, and Arsul Sani.
“Basically, the three judges are of the opinion that the applicant has the legal standing to act as the a quo applicant. Therefore, the Constitutional Court should consider the main points of the petition,” explained Suhartoyo
Also read: Constitutional Court Tests Requirements for Dissolution of Corrupt Political Parties
In his petition, the applicant believes that political parties that violate the 1945 Constitution, laws and regulations or endanger the integrity of the state must be dissolved by the Constitutional Court, not frozen first as stipulated in the article being sued.
In his petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 48 paragraph (2) of the Political Party Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not have binding legal force. Regarding Article 48 paragraph (3) of the Political Party Law, the Petitioner asked the Constitutional Court to declare it conditionally unconstitutional as long as it is not interpreted
“Political parties that violate the provisions as intended in Article 40 paragraph (2) are dissolved by decision of the Constitutional Court.”
(Z-9)
#Rejects #Proposal #Political #Parties #Disbanded #Immediately
