Kebebasan Berserikat dan Pengawasan Ormas dalam Perspektif UU No. 17 Tahun 2013 pada Studi Kasus HTI dan FPI

Abstrak

This study aims to examine the freedom of association and the oversight of civil society organizations (CSOs)—referred to in Indonesia as *Organisasi Kemasyarakatan* (Ormas)—within the framework of Law Number 17 of 2013 concerning Civil Society Organizations. It employs a normative approach, focusing on the analysis of legislation, legal doctrine, and court rulings. While the freedom of association is a constitutional right guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, in practice, it is circumscribed by the obligation to maintain public order, national unity, and the values of *Pancasila* (the foundational philosophy of the Indonesian state). Law No. 17 of 2013 establishes the principles, objectives, rights, obligations, prohibitions, and administrative sanctions applicable to CSOs—including those established by foreign nationals—thereby defining their role as partners in development while ensuring that their activities do not conflict with the law or the stability of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). The dissolution of *Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia* (HTI) serves as a clear illustration of the discrepancy between *das Sein* (the actual state of affairs) and *das Sollen* (the prescribed legal standard): HTI actively propagated the concept of a *khilafah* (caliphate), which contradicts *Pancasila* (*das Sein*), whereas Law No. 17 of 2013 mandates that CSOs must be based on *Pancasila* (*das Sollen*). The government subsequently invoked Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (*Perppu*) No. 2 of 2017 to revoke HTI’s legal entity status—a measure upheld by the Constitutional Court as necessary to preserve public order and the integrity of the nation. Similarly, the *Front Pembela Islam* (FPI) had its legal entity status revoked in 2020, as its activities were deemed to disrupt public order, violate the principles of *Pancasila*, and incite social unrest. FPI was known for frequently organizing mass actions in the name of morality and religion; however, in practice, these activities often led to confrontations with both law enforcement authorities and the general public. The dissolution of the FPI illustrates how regulations concerning civil society organizations (CSOs) serve as instruments for both oversight and the safeguarding of national stability. These cases demonstrate that the freedom of association in Indonesia is not absolute; rather, it is constrained by the principles of the rule of law, democracy, and the *Pancasila* (the nation’s foundational philosophy). CSO regulations function not merely as a means of supervision, but also as a mechanism to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, ensuring that the exercise of the freedom of association remains within the bounds of the law and national values. This research underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between the protection of human rights and the state’s interest in preserving national stability. Furthermore, it highlights the need for regulations that are adaptive to socio-political dynamics—particularly in addressing challenges posed by transnational ideologies and populist movements that could potentially undermine national integration. Consequently, the freedom of association must be understood as a constitutionally guaranteed right that is simultaneously limited by the obligation to uphold public order, national unity, and the values of *Pancasila*. The cases of HTI and FPI offer a significant lesson: the oversight of civil society organizations is not merely a form of restriction, but also a safeguard for the stability of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).