Constitutional Law expert Yusril Ihza Mahendra has been outspokenAssessing that several academics have used intellectual guises to protect political parties that practice oligarchy, dictatorship, and nepotism.
This was revealed by Yusril Ihza Mahendra when responding to the statement of Zainal Arifin Mochtar, Ferry Amsari, and Luthfi Yazid.
Previously, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, Ferry Amsari, and Luthfi Yazid made statements in the mass media and admitted that they were shaking their heads because Yusril Ihza Mahendra was willing to defend the lawsuit of a former Democrat Party (PD) cadre.
In response, Yusril Ihza Mahendra said that the three names shook their heads because they did not study philosophy of law and legal theory in depth.
According to Yusril Ihza Mahendra, that Zainal Arifin Mochtar and Ferry Amsari have been busy dealing with corruption issues, they've been busy here and there, so they forgot to study constitutional law deeply.
Yusril Ihza Mahendra admitted to suing the AD/ART PD to the MA, because he considered that the institution had the authority to examine the party's AD/ART.
Moreover, the AD/ART was ordered to be formed by law (UU).
Parties are also delegated the authority by law to form AD/ART.
That way, if the AD/ART violates the Law, then there must be an institution that can examine it and declare it has no binding power. That's why I am surprised if there are academics, whose eyes are blind, they cannot see the fact that so many party's AD/ART crashes. Laws, even the 1945 Constitution. Meanwhile, we know that parties play a very decisive role in the administration of the state," explained Yusril Ihza Mahendra in his statement, Thursday (7/10/2021).
Yusril Ihza Mahendra considered that the role of political parties in the government was much bigger than regents and mayors.
"I was astonished to read Zainal Arifin Mochtar's comments who used the guise of intellectuals to protect parties that practice oligarchy, dictatorship and nepotism," said Yusril Ihza Mahendra.
"These are the kind of intellectuals who are not sensitive to democracy and hide behind rigid formal laws with frozen brains," he continued.
Not only that, Yusril Ihza Mahendra was even more surprised by Luthfi Yazid's comment which said that if this AD/ART test was granted, it would encourage anyone to test the party's AD/ART.
Thus eliminating legal certainty. Yusril Ihza Mahendra was even accused of intellectual manipulation.
According to Yusril Ihza Mahendra, Luthfi's view is very surprising, as if he does not know that all laws and regulations can be tested to the MK and MA. This is regulated in the 1945 Constitution.
When did Luthfi ever say that the opening of the door for testing all laws and regulations resulted in the absence of legal certainty?" explained Yusril Ihza Mahendra.
Legal academics and lawyers have long fought for the existence of judicial review of the law so that there is no manipulation of regulations that are contrary to the constitution.
"Moreover, it contains political manipulation for the benefit of the regime," said Yusril Ihza Mahendra. "So, who exactly is doing intellectual manipulation to scare the public that the opening of testing the party's AD/ART will create legal uncertainty, even further, legal anarchism?" he added.
Regarding the Democratic Party's AD/ART, Refly Harun bluntly Sentil Yusril
Constitutional Law expert Refly Harun bluntly assessed that the debate between senior lawyer Yusril Ihza Mahendra and Zainal Arifin Mochtar regarding the Democrat Party's AD/ART lawsuit to the Supreme Court (MA) was no longer substantive.
This was revealed by the social and political observer through a video that aired on Refly Harun's YouTube channel. Actually, there were two debates and unfortunately, it looks like the debate has recently become more substantive, "explained Refly, launching GenPI.co, Saturday (9/10). ).
Responding to this, Refly Harun invited the warring parties to debate and discuss the substance directly. "Therefore, the debate (at this time) does not seem to be substantively discussed. The substantive thing is whether Yusril's breakthrough can be justified or not in legal theory, right," explained Refly Harun.
"Apparently when responding to Zainal and Ferry Hapsari, Yusril was more tempted to see the issue at the periphery and Zainal was more at the periphery," explained Refly Harun. public area."
Previously, Refly Harun considered that the issues being debated by Yusril Ihza Mahendra and Zainal Arifin Mochtar were simple.
"Those whose names are two legal intellectuals or legal academics meet to debate, there will be three opinions, academic opinionsthe opinions of the first, second and third legal academics are outside of those two," he quipped.
Refly Harun also reminded that there is one thing that needs to be underlined from Yusril Ihza Mahendra's feud with Zainal Arifin Mochtar regarding the party's AD/ART is wanting to make a legal breakthrough.
"Yes, we should go to the Constitutional Court (MK) first. Or we have a mechanism called a constitutional question because it concerns the existence of Article 24a paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution," said Refly Harun. Under the law, the regulations under the legislation are regulations issued by state institutions or institutions that are authorized to issue laws and regulations," he added.