Legal Literacy - This article discusses the Position of Political Parties in the Judicial Review of Laws, reviewed from several Decisions of the Constitutional Court. In addition, this article also discusses the reasons why the Constitutional Court grants or does not grant The Battle or legal standing as Petitioners to Political Parties.
In conclusion, political parties, as long as they do not participate in the discussion of a Law in the DPR, can still become petitioners in the Constitutional Court. However, according to the Author, these limitations are still very vague and casuistic. Therefore, it is necessary to establish regulations related to the legal standing of political parties as petitioners for judicial review of laws clearly and definitive.
The position of political parties in the Judicial Review of Laws is an interesting topic to discuss and study further, because the position of political parties in the judicial review of laws still seems vague and casuistic. In fact, the norms tested by the Constitutional Court are abstract norms that are not related to specific concrete cases. This is a consequence of the generally binding nature of the Constitutional Court's decisions (Erga Omnes) so it must be ensured that the thing being tested is detrimental to everyone, not just specifically to the person submitting the application. So, can Political Parties review Laws?
The Constitutional Court Grants Political Parties Legal Standing in the Judicial Review of Laws
Related to The Battle political parties, it has become apparent that there are several Constitutional Court Decisions that have granted legal recognition (The Battle) for political parties to conduct judicial reviews of the constitutionality of laws. For example, Constitutional Court Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 regarding the Judicial Review of Law Number 42 of 2008 concerning the Election of President and Vice President states that the Crescent Star Party (PBB) has the legal standing to review the constitutionality of provisions regarding presidential threshold and the implementation of simultaneous elections.
The Constitutional Court considered that although PBB had participated in the process of discussing Law 42/2008 and gave its approval in the DPR, this political party still met the requirements of legal standing or The Battle. This is because PBB has been recognized as a legal entity of a political party by the Minister of Law and Human Rights, and therefore, has the right to review the constitutionality of laws relating to presidential elections.
In addition to the case requested by the Crescent Star Party (PBB), there are several other Constitutional Court Decisions that provide legal standing for political parties. These decisions include: Constitutional Court Decision Number 110-111-112-113/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court granted legal standing to the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) which challenged the constitutionality of the norm in the Law Number 10 of 2008 concerning Elections for Members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD.
In Constitutional Court Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 concerning the Judicial Review of Law Number 42 of 2008 concerning the Election of President and Vice President, the Constitutional Court explained that the recognition The Battle for political parties to review the constitutionality of laws is an effort to ensure the fulfillment of citizens' constitutional rights, including the right to vote and be elected in presidential elections. Therefore, the Constitutional Court pays special attention to the legal standing of political parties in ensuring the realization of the principles of democracy and human rights in Indonesia.
Limitations on Granting Legal Standing
Although political parties have legal standing, in case Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008, the Court emphasized that if a political party or its members are involved in discussions and decision-making institutionally, the Court will state that the political party and/or members of the DPR do not have legal standing to file the case. The Court is of the opinion that in the future, political parties and/or members of the DPR who are involved in discussions and institutional decision-making on laws requested to be reviewed, will be declared to have no legal standing through Constitutional Court regulations.
The Court Has Also Refused to Grant Legal Standing To Political Parties to Review Laws
Interestingly, the Court has also refused to grant The Battle to political parties. As in case number 73/PUU-XII/204 concerning the provisions regarding the composition of the DPR leadership, the Constitutional Court did not grant legal standing to the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). The same thing also happened in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 35/PUU-XII/2014 by not granting legal standing to the National Awakening Party (PKB) related to the judicial review of the provisions of the open list proportional election system in the Election Law.
In the decision, the Constitutional Court considered political ethics and prevented conflicts of interest related to the rights and authorities of the DPR as an institution to form Laws and Members of the DPR to propose draft laws in providing restrictions on the legal standing of political parties. In this case, the Constitutional Court paid special attention to avoiding violations of political ethics and preventing conflicts of interest that could affect the process of forming Laws in the DPR.
The Necessity of Regulation Regarding Legal Standing Political Parties in the Judicial Review of Laws
With the difference in the Court's stance in several decisions related to Legal Standing Political Parties in the Judicial Review of Laws, according to the author, it is important and necessary for the Court to provide and establish clear boundaries regarding the legal standing of political parties in the judicial review of laws. The lack of a definite measure to evaluate legal standing (The Battle) of political parties as applicants in the judicial review of laws can result in inconsistencies in legal considerations. In addition to several examples of decisions with different legal considerations, there are still many cases of judicial review of laws filed by political parties, such as Decision Number 23-26/PUU-VIII/2010, Decision Number 38/PUU-VIII/2010, Decision Number 39/PUU-XI/2013, Decision Number 93/PUU-XII/2014, Decision Number 85/PUU-XII/2014, Decision Number 35/PUU-XIV/2016, and so on.
Review filed by Party Cadres Who are Members of the DPR and Political Party Administrators
In addition to the context of parties institutionally filing for review, it is also necessary to further examine several cases of judicial review of laws filed by members of the DPR and party administrators, but in this case the applications were filed in the name of individuals, as happened in Decision Number 38/PUU-VIII/2010 filed by Lily Chadidjah Wahid (Member of the DPR from the National Awakening Party Fraction) and Decision Number 20/PUU-XIV/2016 dated August 30, 2016 filed by Setya Novanto (Member of the DPR from the Golkar Party Fraction). Regarding such cases, in the author's opinion, clearer affirmation is also needed regarding the boundaries and criteria for assessing Members of the DPR and Political Party Cadres as well as the legal standing of political parties in the judicial review of laws by the Constitutional Court.
Comments (0)
Write a comment