Jakarta –
Supreme Court (MA) rejected the application for judicial review (JR) against Democrat Party’s Articles of Association and Bylaws proposed by former cadres. Yusril Ihza Mahendra as the attorney for the former Democrat cadre, he opened his voice.
Yusril assessed that the Supreme Court’s consideration was too fast. However, Yusril respects the Supreme Court’s decision even though he disagrees.
According to him, academically the Supreme Court’s decision can be debated, but as a decision of the highest judicial institution, the decision is final and binding. Yusril said he respected the decision even though he did not agree.
“The Supreme Court’s legal considerations are too vague in deciding issues that are actually complex 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 that decision,” Yusril told reporters, Tuesday (11/9/2021) .
Yusril admitted that he did not agree with the Supreme Court’s consideration that it was not authorized to examine the AD/ART of any political party because it is binding on the political parties and their respective members.
Yusril said that political parties are not state institutions, but according to him, political parties play an important role in the state, especially in nominating the president and vice president.
“The AD and ART are not completely binding only inside, but also outside. The AD of political parties regulates the requirements to become party members. The requirements to become members are binding on everyone who does not want to become a member of the political party. Political parties are not state institutions, but their role is very decisive in countries such as nominating the President and participating in the general election,” said Yusril.
Yusril said that the Law on the Establishment of Legislation clearly states that the Law can delegate further regulation to lower laws and regulations.
“When the Law delegates further arrangements to the party’s AD/ART, then what is the status of the AD/ART? If that is the understanding of the Supreme Court, it means that it is a mistake if the Law delegates further regulation to the AD/ART,” he continued.
According to Yusril, the Supreme Court’s legal considerations in examining this case seem elementary. In a sense, according to him, it is still a long way to go into the area of legal philosophy and legal theory to understand the formation of legal norms in depth.
Yusril understood why the MA came to the decision stating the application was inadmissible without considering it necessary to examine all the arguments put forward in the application.
Furthermore, Yusril said that he still respects the Supreme Court’s decision, even though he does not agree. He said the Supreme Court’s considerations were brief in deciding the JR he proposed.
“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 that decision,” said Yusril.
Furthermore, Yusril said that his duties as lawyers for 4 former PD cadres had been completed with the Supreme Court’s decision. Because there is no further legal action that can be taken after the decision of JR by the Supreme Court.
“My job as a lawyer has been completed,” said Yusril.
The Supreme Court rejects the Democrat’s AD/ART lawsuit, on the following page
– .
