Jakarta –
Democratic Party (PD) suspect that Yusril Ihza Mahendra and his friends (dkk) deliberately did not propose PD as the respondent in the AD/ART lawsuit that was submitted to the Supreme Court (MA). Yusril et al allegedly wanted to avoid the explanation of PD.
“We suspect that the petitioners did it on purpose not to propose the Democratic Party as the respondent, even though the object of the petition is the Democrat Party’s AD/ART to prevent the Democratic Party from providing the real explanation,” said PD Hamdan Zoelva’s attorney at PD DPP, Jalan Proklamasi, Jakarta. Center, Monday (11/10/2021).
Hamdan assessed that it was the PD who was the applicant in the lawsuit, not even the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (Kemenkumham). Because, said Hamdan, Kemenkumham only confirmed, not the maker of AD/ART.
“Then, there is also the problem of making the Ministry of Law and Human Rights as the respondent party. Only because it ratifies the AD/ART PD. Whereas in the procedural law and state administrative court law, if you object to the decision of the Minister of Law and Human Rights on the ratification of the AD/ART PD, it should be submitted to the Administrative Court “Because the Menkumham decision is declarative in nature, it is the object of a lawsuit at the PTUN which has absolute competence, not a material trial to the Supreme Court,” he said.
“The decision of the Minister of Law and Human Rights is order, so when it happens. not regulation (arrangement) or this arrangement is a decision. This is a decision, it’s just a decision, there is no arrangement,” he continued.
The former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) considered that the petition for the AD/ART PD lawsuit filed by Yusril et al to the Supreme Court was unusual because the AD/ART was not a legal product. He said that the legal norms of the AD/ART of political parties, including the PD, only bind party members.
“The application is not common because it makes AD/ART PD as one of the types of legislation. If we read Article 1 item 2 of Law Number 12 of 2011, this is known as the Law on the Establishment of Legislation or abbreviated as PPP Law, on legislation -laws, giving restrictions on the rule of law, “he said.
“From that limitation, the AD/ART of political parties, including PD, is clearly not a statutory regulation. Because it is not a legally binding norm in general, it only binds PD and its members, not binding it out. So within the limits of this understanding it does not include statutory regulations ,” he continued.
In addition, Hamdan said that the AD/ART of political parties is not determined by state institutions. He explained that AD/ART was determined by political parties through party founders and congress participants.
Watch the video ‘PD Names Yusril’s Thoughts on Filing an AD/ART Lawsuit Like Hitler’:
Read more, on the next page:
– .
