Yuris Muda Indonesia – The Supreme Court on Tuesday (9/11) rejected the application for a judicial review of the Democrat Party’s AD/ART.

The refusal was decided and announced by the Panel of Judges led by Chief Justice Supandi along with two member judges, namely Is Sudaryono and Yodi Martono Wahyunadi.

JR’s request was submitted by a number of former Democratic cadres who had crossed over to the KLB camp accompanied by lawyer Yusril Ihza Mahendra as legal counsel. Yusril said that the Supreme Court must make legal breakthroughs to examine, try and decide whether the 2020 Democratic Party’s Articles of Association or Articles of Association are against the law or not.

He also explained a number of things that needed to be tested, for example the authority of the Party’s High Council and the provisions regarding the conditions for holding an Extraordinary Conference which had to be approved by the Party’s High Council.

“We are of the opinion that the testing of the Democratic Party’s AD/ART to the Supreme Court is very important in building a healthy democracy in our country,” said Yusril.

The lawyer for the Democratic Party, Hamdan Zoelva, appreciated the decision of the Supreme Court (MA) which rejected the judicial review of the Democrat Party’s Articles of Association/Budget (AD/ART).

Hamdan is of the opinion that the Supreme Court’s decision is very appropriate because the AD/ART of political parties cannot be judicially reviewed by the Supreme Court.

“What was decided by the Supreme Court was very precise with very thorough, and in-depth, and thorough considerations,” said Hamdan at the Democratic Party’s DPP Office, Wednesday (11/10/2021).

“Because if once it is broken that the articles of association can be judicially reviewed, then our legal order as a whole will be damaged,” Hamdan continued.

Hamdan said, the three considerations of the Supreme Court in rejecting JR were in accordance with what was conveyed by the Democratic Party so far. The former chairman of the Constitutional Court said that experts and law lecturers throughout Indonesia also share the same opinion that the Supreme Court cannot carry out a JR on the AD/ART of a party.

“Almost all academics give the same view, which is the same as the Supreme Court’s considerations in deciding this case, for us the considerations are quite clear, clear, in-depth and comprehensive.”

According to Hamdan, his party deliberately brought this case into a public discourse so that it could be a lesson for the Indonesian people in implementing democracy.

“Don’t let the democratic principles that are ordered can be damaged by political efforts,” he said.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision, the applicant’s lawyer, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, resigned.

Although resigned, Yusril admitted that he did not agree with the judge’s decision. One of them is the opinion of the Supreme Court panel of judges which states that the party’s AD/ART is not a generally accepted statutory regulation. Where, according to the Supreme Court’s decision, AD ART is only binding on party members.

“AD and ART are not completely tied to the inside, but to the outside as well. The political party AD regulates the requirements to become party members. The requirement to become a member is binding on everyone who does not want to become a member of the political party,” Yusril explained

“Political parties are not state institutions, but their role is very decisive in the country, such as nominating the president and participating in elections,” he continued.

Furthermore, according to Yusril, the Law on the Formation of Legislation also clearly states that the Law can delegate further regulation to lower laws and regulations.

“Well, when the law delegates further regulation to the party’s AD/ART, then what is the status of the AD/ART? If that’s the case, the Supreme Court’s understanding means that it is a mistake if the law delegates further arrangements to the AD/ART,” he said.

Yusril assessed that the Supreme Court’s legal considerations in examining this case were very elementary. He argues that the decision is still far from entering the area of ​​legal philosophy and legal theory to understand the formation of legal norms in depth. Therefore, Yusril claimed to understand why the Supreme Court came to a decision stating that the application could not be accepted without considering the need to examine all the arguments put forward in the application. He also respected the decision.

“Although academically the Supreme Court’s decision can be debated, but as a decision of the highest judicial institution, the decision is final and binding,” said Yusril.

“The Supreme Court’s legal considerations are too vague in deciding a complex issue related to the application of democratic principles in the life of the party. But that’s the decision and whatever the decision, we still have to respect the decision,” he concluded.

Yusril stated that his duties as lawyers for the four Democrat Party cadres had been completed after the Supreme Court’s decision. He said he couldn’t do much.

According to Yusril, no further legal action can be taken after the application for judicial review at the Supreme Court is rejected.

“There is no further legal action that can be taken after JR’s decision by the Supreme Court. My task as a lawyer has been completed in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Law,” Yusril said through the short message, Wednesday (10/11/2021).