Other Understanding Arrangements That Are Contrary to Pancasila in Law Number 16 of 2017

Abstract

This research was conducted to find out how other understanding arrangements that are contrary to Pancasila in Law No. 16 of 2017; and What are the criteria or objective measures of an understanding that are considered contrary to the Pancasila and which institution is competent in evaluating an understanding that is considered to be in conflict with the Pancasila. To be able to find an objective measure of  “understanding that is contrary to Pancasila”, several approaches can be used namely, first the Philosophical approach, which focuses on theoretical deepening of the rule of law with the core of the study explaining that an Act must emerge with the principle of concrete rules and is easily understood generally. Secondly, the Juridical approach which explains that the mention of the two last additional elements in the explanation of Article 59 paragraph 4 letter c of Law No. 16 of 2017. And third, a sociological approach that explains that to be able to find an objective measurement mechanism for "understanding contrary to Pancasila". In the provisions of the prohibition of Community Organizations contained in Article 59 of Law No. 16 of 2017 specifically related to "Understanding that is contrary to Pancasila", is very laden with nuances of social and moral values, therefore to be able to measure actions or understandings that are considered to be in conflict with it must be submitted to the judiciary in evaluating it.