CRITICAL READING THE PASSING OF THE PERPU NO 2 TAHUN

2017 ON THE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY

From Feisal Adi Candra
English languange education departement
3rd Semester
to fulfill the task of Reading for Academic Context
lecturer : Anisa Awaliyyah,S.S. M.Pd

Pros and cons continue to roll since the Government issued Government

Regulation in Lieu of Law (PERPPU) no. 2 of 2017 on Community Organizations

(ORMAS), which supersedes several articles in Law no. 17 of 2013 on Community

Organizations (CSOs).

The reason of the Government is to make this PERPPU as a weapon to

combat the radical mass organizations whose activities are not in line or against the

Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, because the Ordinance Act is inadequate. The

mass organizations law is not yet a sufficient weapon for the government to dissolve

the CSOs whose activities are in conflict with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

There is still a "legal vacuum" in the implementation of effective sanctions for mass

organizations as mentioned above.

Is that true?

Let us surgical one by one.

First, we start from the terms of PERPPU formation.

In the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia, Article

22 Paragraph (1) states that: "In the case of the urgency of compelling interest, the

President shall be entitled to enact a substitute government regulation." Related to

this "coercive crunch", the Constitutional Court MK) through Decision Letter No.

138 / PUU-VII / 2009 then set 3 terms as a parameter of the element, namely:
 i. The existence of the situation is an urgent need to solve legal problems

quickly based on the Act;

ii. The required law does not exist so there is a legal vacuum, or there is an Act

but is inadequate;

iii. The vacuum of the law can not be overcome by making the law in a normal

procedure because it will take a long time while the urgent circumstances

need certainty to be resolved;

The question that then arises is: is there such a precarious situation

happening to this nation today, so that if the government does not act immediately

(by issuing this PERPPU), then this country will be destroyed?

The argument that the government builds and its supporters line is the

existence of organizations that conduct activities that are contrary to Pancasila and

the 1945 Constitution, while our rules are not enough to take firm action against

them. As for rules, but it takes a long time until the dissolution of these

organizations. This is very interesting to examine.

Fear of radical mass organizations, say Hisbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) and

other mass organizations that will replace the state ideology is too much. I

personally disagree with the purpose of HTI. For me Pancasila as the basis of the

country is final. However, in connection with this PERPPU, HTI and its current

existence has not urged the state to immediately issue PERPPU. Why not follow

the legal mechanisms that exist? Yet all the children of the nation (including me)

were enthusiastic when Pak Wiranto a few months ago announced about the
dissolution of HTI. There is an exaggerated fear. In fact, if following the mindset

of the government then the Terrorism Bill should be completed as soon as possible.

Furthermore, this forceful element of crunch is then automatically denied by the

government when there is a considerable time span between the date of the issuance

of PERPPU and the date of the dissolution of the conflicting CSOs, namely HTI.

The crunching requirement is the "IMMEDIATE" action after this PERPPU is

issued. The reason this fall by itself.

Secondly, no less interesting and funny is when the government in every

occasion always said that PERPPU This organization aims to dissolve the

organization that is against the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, in this case

HTI. The government is like trying to obscure another purpose (hidden agenda) of

this PERPPU. We must know that this PERPPU change covers dozens of chapters.

Meanwhile, only one (1) article that regulates the dissolution of organizations that

are against the Pancasila. Just one of the many.

I understand that the argument of "HTI dissolution" is purposely used as

a shield to muffle the critical voices of the people, as most of the citizens of this

republic (including me) agree if HTI is dissolved. This argument of "HTI

dissolution" was then built, kept echoed at every opportunity, making us forget to

criticize other things from PERPPU.

THIS IS NOT A REMOVAL ORMAS DISCRETION.

Third, there is a stepping over the law in the content of PERPPU.

The dissolution of mass organizations based solely on the government's subjective

consideration of a mass organization and the removal of justice mechanisms in the

process of dissolving a mass organization for me is a denial of the law and the values

of democracy. It is also an attempt to eliminate citizens' democratic rights (a venture

that clearly opens the way to authoritarianism). The use of the principle of

Contrarius Actus which underlies the making of PERPPU is not appropriate. If

Indonesia is a legal country, then the mechanism of dissolving CSOs through the

judicial system is a must. There is no good reason for us not to use the judicial

mechanism. If the process of dissolution of the mass organizations seem long (as

stipulated in the Law of ORMAS), then the government only needs to shorten the

process, not eliminate the most important thing from the law itself.

Fourth, a broad interpretation of Pancasila can be fatal to the existence of

mass organizations. The New Order regime carried out authoritarian and repressive

actions in the name of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. Truth was interpreted

unilaterally only by the authorities. This has the potential to be repeated after this

kind of action has a place in this PERPPU.

For me, good governance by looking at humanity, equality before the law,

a wise and wise decision-making atmosphere with not too much interference in

politics, the embodiment of social justice, the effort to shorten the distance between

the rich and the poor is pengamalam the values of Pancasila itself. If the government

itself has not been able to practice it, then how do people judge the government that

is not able to practice Pancasila in this governance? Then how the government

wants to interpret Pancasila for mass organizations if the government itself is not

able to bring good governance based on Pancasila?

 Finally, I would like to give a critical account of some of the articles

contained in this PERPPU.

1. Article 59 paragraph (1) acts: CSOs are prohibited from using names,

symbols, flags, or attributes essentially or wholly similar to the names,

symbols, flags or attributes of government agencies, international agencies

/ institutions, other mass organizations or political parties .

This is a multi-faceted article. That is, the extent to which the use of the

name, symbol, etc? So far so many organizations are using logos almost

identical to each other.

Call it the use of rice and cotton emblems, or chains, stars, etc. In essence,

there is always a similarity between the use of these things between one

organization with another. Will everything be dissolved? How many more

problems will there be with this article?

2. Article 59 paragraph (2) letters a and b: CSOs are prohibited from receiving

from or providing to any party donations of any kind that are contrary to the

provisions of legislation; and / or raising funds for political parties.

This chapter is full of political content. How will the political situation

take place before the Election? Each Political Party must have a tactical

organ that moves to do fundraising for certain Political Parties. What about

the political party underbouw organization that currently exists and will be

in line with the escalation of politics ahead of the 2019 election?

3. Article 59 paragraph (3) letter a: CSOs are prohibited from taking hostile

action against tribe, religion, race, or class;

 I agree. But, let's look at the explanation of the sound of this point.

What is meant by "hostile acts" is a statement, statement, attitude or

aspiration, whether oral or written, whether through electronic media or not

through electronic media that generate hatred, either to certain groups or to

every person including to the state organizers.

"State Organizer". Again the use of this sentence by itself shows

an authoritarian and anti-criticism regime. What if in the demonstration

we say sentence that shows anger toward members of the House of

Representatives or public officials who do corruption? Will we be

arrested? Our organization will be dissolved?

4. Article 59 paragraph (3) letter b: CSOs are prohibited from abusing,

defaming, or blasphemy of religion held in Indonesia;

The rubber articles of "blasphemy" which have been abolished in various

countries in the new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code are now

re-stated explicitly and clearly in this rule.

What is the definition of defamation? what is the limit?

The sense of defamation for me is still very subjective. There is no clear

benchmark on this mockery. Between one person and another has a different

understanding of defamation. This is because the level of emotional maturity of

each person is very different. Let's look at Ahok case that a few months ago very

attention to this nation's children. Related to the defamation Ahok made against

Islam, Muslims themselves are divided into two parts; there is an agreement Ahok

do blasphemy, others say no. From that case we have learned that the truth becomes
very vague. People with good mass mobilization skills, good agitation and

propaganda skills can then win a bout of opinion after their interests.

Secondly, the word "religion". Only "religion". What about the flow of

other beliefs, the adherents of the original religions of the archipelago that currently

number the hundreds? Are they (too) allowed to be "spotted", "wounded,"

"dredged"? Only six religions are recognized in Indonesia. The rest?

Want until when the nation's children split in a nation situation like this?

5. Article 59 paragraph (3) points (c): CSOs are prohibited from committing

acts of violence, disrupting public order or tranquility, or damaging public

facilities and social facilities;

"Disturbing public order" is a vague phrase and a bias of meaning. Again

the sound of this point is very multitafsir.

Restrictions on freedom of expression are a serious threat to the

democratic life of the country. What if in an action, the action mass performs

long march on the protocol road, using a large-size speaker, performing

parades, burning tires, etc. This of course disturbs the convenience of other

road users, the community around, etc. The police may easily dismiss any

action to reason with this article.

6. Article 59 paragraph (4) letter a: CSOs are prohibited to embrace, develop,

and disseminate teachings or understandings that are contrary to Pancasila.

In the explanation of this point, it is mentioned that: "The doctrine or

ideology that is contradictory to Pancasila" includes the teachings of

Atheism, Communism / Marxism-Leninism, or other understandings aimed

 at replacing Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic

of Indonesia .

To note, in college (not all majors) there is a lesson about the great

ideologies of the world. One of them, we study Communism / Marxism-

Leninism on campus. We also see many books that load their minds, loaded

online, sold everywhere. Broad circulation. How is the government's

concrete step for that?

I then see this is a "anti-intellectual attitude".

7. Article 82A Paragraph (1-3): Penal sanctions shall apply to members and /

or administrators of CBOs.

I imagine the jail to be full if these sanctions are enforced. Just imagine if

there is an organization that consists of thousands of people, breaking some

of the articles as mentioned in article 82A this. Then everything is

imprisoned. Wow!

SOLUTION:

I hope the House of Representatives to accept this PERPPU to be discussed into

Law.

Note to DPR-RI are the articles in PERPPU that have the potential to curb

democracy, eliminating the rule of law itself as contained in my record should be

removed.
 In addition, it may be the mechanism of dissolution of CSOs that need to

be improved. I agree with the offer of a solution presented by the Constitutional

Law Expert: Rafly Harun. He suggested that the dissolution of CSOs be based on

two mechanisms. Ordinary and extraordinary.

Maybe this is a number of things that become a small note from me related to this

PERPPU. There is no intention to criticize. We of course only want law

enforcement through a fair process and fulfill the sense of justice, the realization of

a good climate of democratic life where every citizen; whoever, has the right to vote

without being under pressure, or the shadow of fear of anything.

Good citizens in a democratic system are citizens who are willing to be

critical partners of the government, willing to give criticism, feedback, responses,

to any government policy. That's it.