By: Ajeng Mufadillah)*
In the case of the crunch that forced matters that force the president of the government regulation of the Act (1945 Constitution Article 22 paragraph 1) Very unconstitutional President issued the Perpmas Ormas, because departing from the positive legal view of the Perppu when there is something that forced to remove? President Joko Widodo finally issued Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2017 on Amendment of Law No. 17 of 2013 on Community Organization (CSO) on July 10, 2017. This regulation is a government regulation that is not playing in Safeguarding the Republic of Indonesia. Previously, President Joko Widodo also issued a harsh statement about the “gebuk” organization that tried to disrupt Indonesia.
The issuance of this Perppu is inseparable from the situation of moving crunch and emergency situation. This is a requirement to issue Perppu. In the explanatory section of the Perppu is clearly a quote of the Constitutional Court’s decision on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In his explanation, it can be interpreted that which “with regard to the crunch of the middle” is a threat to the future life of the nation and state of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia.
Then, a state of emergency that can be maintained by the State’s sovereignty based on the Pancasila of the 1945 Constitution, among other activities of certain CSOs that have committed hostilities, among others, speech, statement, aspiration whether oral or written, through electronic media or not electronic media, Either to certain groups or to those belonging to the state organizers.
The principle of administrative law on which the legislation is issued is the principle of contrario actus, the institution which has the permission or authorization to the CSO, has the authority to revoke or resolve it. The substance of this Perppu is the existence of governmental authority to impose sanctions against CSOs that are inconsistent with the spirit of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. In fact, the board may be subject to criminal sanctions.
As usual, this Perppu becomes a public discourse. There are loud voices in support, and some are refusing. All have an argument building. In due time, the DPR will respond to this Perppu being accepted as a law or denied. We hope, the House of Representatives to be wise in this Perppu response, so not emotional or different, really true.
Perppu is also for the purpose and purpose to distinguish and protect organizations consistent with the purposes of the establishment of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. Because, the attitude of this government is an obligation to carry out oaths during office positions. However, it is also a right if there are objections to this Perppu, because it is considered active freedom of assembly and association.
Textually, in this Perppu Government indeed there should be an extension unity. However, contextually, there is a response behind why this Perppu should be issued. Some are considering doing the perppu to be more secure and secure. (Article 23 paragraph (1), the right to argument (Article 23 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Rights of the Human Rights (Article 24) Jo.
The wishes of individuals and groups who reject the Perppu, certainly do not need to be inhibited, because the state is ready to legal channels to fight the Perppu or Act that is considered contrary to the constitution. The Constitutional Court is a guardian of the constitution, so whatever results are decided later can change the debate, wrong or not, erroneous or not from this Perppu.
)* The author is CIDISS Contributor
Comments are closed.