Jakarta, CNN Indonesia —
Yusril Ihza Mahendra’s lawyer respects the decision Supreme Court (MA) refuses the material test or judicial review to the Articles of Association/Budgets (AD/ART) of the Democratic Party for the management of the General Chair Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono (AHY).
Yusril said his duties as lawyers for 4 former Democratic cadres had been completed. According to him, no appeal can be made after this decision.
“But that’s the decision and whatever the decision, we still have to respect that decision lawyer has been completed according to the provisions of the Advocates Law,” Yusril said CNNIndonesia.com, Tuesday (9/11).
However, Yusril did not agree with the various reasons the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit. For him, the reasons put forward by the Supreme Court are still too vague and can still be debated from a legal point of view.
Yusril assessed that the AD and ART of political parties are not completely binding only internally, but externally as well. The Articles of Association of political parties also regulate the requirements to become party members. The requirement to become a member is binding on everyone who does not wish to become a member of that political party.
“Political parties are not state institutions, but their role is very decisive in the state, such as nominating the president and participating in the general election,” he said.
Furthermore, Yusril assessed that the formation of laws and regulations said that the law could delegate further regulations 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 this is the understanding of the MA, it means it is a mistake if the law delegates further arrangements to the AD/ART,” he said.
Previously, MA Spokesman Andi Samsan Nganro emphasized that the Supreme Court had no authority to examine, hear, and decide on the object of the petition in the form of the AD/ART of political parties.
Andi also explained that the AD/ART of political parties is not a legally binding norm. Rather, it only binds the internal parties concerned. He also said that political parties are not state institutions, bodies or institutions established by law or by the government on the orders of the law.
“The HUM objection request cannot be accepted,” reads the decision quoted from the Supreme Court’s Registrar’s website, Tuesday (9/11).
(rzr / fra)
– .
