The New Version Of FPI's Name, Mahfud MD: Establishing Anything Is Allowed As Long As It Doesn't Violate The Law

Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Mahfud MD (Irfan Meidianto / VOI)

JAKARTA - The Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs (Menko Polhukam) Mahfud MD spoke up about the declaration of the Islamic United Front which was carried out by officials of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI). According to him, the declaration of a new name after the government banned FPI was legal as long as they did not break the law.

"It is permissible to establish anything as long as it does not violate the law. Establishing an Islamic Upholding Front is allowed, the Islamic Women's Front is allowed, the Science Guard Forum is also allowed," Mahfud said in a written statement to journalists, Friday, January 1.

He also guaranteed that the government would not take special steps because FPI changed its name because the emergence of a new organization was a common thing. Even based on his records, currently there are 440 thousand mass organizations and associations that are allowed to exist by the government.

"The government will not take special steps. Every day Wong also stands an organization. Currently there are no less than 440 thousand mass organizations and associations, that's okay too," he explained.

Furthermore, the emergence of FPI with a new acronym after being banned by the government is nothing new. He gave an example, the Indonesian Syuro Mislimin Council (Masyumi) which after being disbanded gave birth to Parmusi, PPP, DDII, Masyumi Baru, Masyumi Reborn, and so on. The same thing happened with the Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI) when it was dissolved, which also gave birth to mass organizations and their figures until now.

"PNI fused then gave birth to PDI, then gave birth to PDI Perjuangan, Barisan Banteng Muda, and so on. Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) once broke up and once gave birth to KPP-NU and was not prosecuted until it disbanded itself," he said.

Thus, Mahfud did not care about the FPI declaring a new name. Moreover, according to the law, nothing can prohibit a person from assembling and forming an association.

"So legally and in the constitution, nothing can prohibit people from associating and gathering, as long as they do not violate the law and disturb public order and peace," said the former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK).

Previously reported, after the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) became a banned organization in the country, they then changed their name and were declared the Islamic United Front. There were 19 people who became declarators, including FPI Chairman Ahmad Sabri Lubis and General Secretary Munarman.

Other names are Abu Fihir Alattas, Abdurrahman Anwar, Abdul Qadir, Awit Mashuri, Haris Ubaidillah, Idrus Al Habsyi, Idrus Hasan, Ali Alattas, Ali Alattas, I Tuankota Basalamah, Syafiq Alaydrus, Baharuzaman, Amir Ortega, Syahroji, Waluyo, Joko, and M. Luthfi.

"To all administrators, members and sympathizers of the Islamic Defenders Front throughout Indonesia and abroad, to avoid unnecessary matters and clashes with wrongdoing regimes, we hereby declare the Islamic United Front to continue the struggle to defend religion, nation and state accordingly. with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, "wrote the official statement of the Islamic United Front received by VOI, Wednesday, December 30.

The declarator of the Islamic United Front considered the government's decision to dissolve FPI against the applicable law.

They refer to the decision of the Constitutional Court 82 / PPU-XI / 2013, in the legal considerations on page 125 which states that an organization can register itself at every level of the government agency authorized to do so.

On the other hand, based on the principle of freedom of association and association, an organization that does not register with the authorized government agency does not receive services from the government (state), but cannot determine that the organization is a prohibited mass organization, or the state cannot prohibit the organization's activities as long as it does not carry out its activities. activities that disturb security, public order, or violate the law.

"That because the Joint Decree violates the constitution and is against the law, in substance the Joint Decree does not have legal force in terms of both legality and legitimacy," wrote the statement.