Jakarta – Yusril Ihza Mahendra said there was nothing strange in the formal and material examination of the Articles of Association and Bylaws (AD/ART) of the Democratic Party of the era of Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono (AHY). Yusril said that what was strange was the attitude of the Democratic Party.
The attorney for four former Democrat Party cadres in filing a lawsuit to the Supreme Court (MA) said that what was tested in this application was not the AD/ART of PD when it was established, but the amendments to the 2020 AD. The revised AD was not a product of any party’s DPP, including the Party. Democrat.
“According to the Political Party Law, the amendments to change the AD ART are the highest institution in the party structure. In PD, the highest institution is the Congress. The 2020 AD PD is not a product of the PD DPP, but the product of the 2020 PD Congress,” Yusril said in a statement. written, Sunday (10/10/2021).
Yusril said that the party’s DPP has the right and the right to represent the party inside and out, just as the Limited Board of Directors has the right to do the same. However, this authority does not involve changes to the articles of association.
“The authority lies with the Congress or Congress. While in a limited liability company, the authority lies with the General Meeting of Shareholders. It will change the actions seen if the Party DPP or the Board of Directors can change the Articles of Association,” he said.
According to Yusril, what is strange is that the lawyers for PD DPP PD ask that DPP PD be the party that ‘most significantly gives information’ on the request for judicial review. Moreover, mentioning the DPP PD as the party that made the AD Amendment.
“DPP PD is only a party that has been given a mandate or mandate by the congress to register amendments to the AD/ART with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. In any party, the situation is the same,” he said.
“If the Supreme Court has not yet acknowledged that the DPP PD is the maker of the AD/ART, then the confession will backfire for the PD itself. The AD is automatically invalid because it was made by the DPP PD according to the confession,” added Yusril.
Yusril continued, in the Supreme Court trial later, the power of attorney given by the DPP PD to Hamdan Zulva can also be excluded as an invalid power of attorney. Because, the power is given not by the ‘party who made’ AD ART.
“The information given is not by the party who only gives information, no more than the testimony given once. But if not, the testimony given is nothing more than the same evidence. But if not, just use it,” he said.