CSO Initiatives
PSHK Public Discussion: Applying Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Principles in the Bill on Persons with Disabilities
Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia (PSHK) held a public discussion entitled “Applying Principles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the Bill on Persons with Disabilities in Jakarta on 11 March 2014. The House of Representatives is currently preparing the Bill, and in the process of ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and endorsing it to become Law No. 19 Year 2011.
PSHK has proposed seven notes for the Bill on Persons with Disabilities, both of formal and substantial aspects from the bill. First, in the formal aspect, is to establish a new law and not merely revise Law No. 4 Year 1997. Second, the bill materials should be compiled in such a complete and detailed manner that there is no need to formulate articles for further policies in its implementing regulations. Third, the Bill must place the matter of the fulfillment of rights of persons with disabilities as a multi-sector issue; no longer focusing on the social sector only. Fourth, the Bill must be able to change the perspective towards persons with disabilities, inline with the CRPD principles.Fifth, the Bill should establishing the rights of a person with disabilities that lead to one ultimate goal; to make persons with disabilities able to survive independently and to be integrated with society (inclusivity). Sixth, the Bill must include provisions on the data of persons with disabilities as a foundation of legislation accurate and specific formation. Seventh, the Bill should constitute a specialized institution that will focus on duties of overseeing the implementation of the provisions in the Bill itself, as well as the implementation of CRPD in Indonesia.
The public discussion also invites all participants and the Indonesian society to encourage the creating of policies supporting efforts of the implementation, respect, and fulfillment of the rights of persons with disabilities, in accordance with the principles within the CRPD. (FN)
House of Representatives
Team of Experts; a New Model in the House of Representatives’ Fit and Proper Test
The Constitutional Court at the moment is looking for justices in order to replace Akil Mochtar and Hardjono at the end of April. According to Law No. 4 Year 2014 on the Provision of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law 1 Year 2013 on the Second Amendment towards Law No. 24 Year 2003 on the Constitutional Court, the Judicial Commission is the institution appointed in establishing a Team of Experts who will select constitutional court judge candidates. However, on Thursday 13 February 2014, the Constitutional Court annulled the law due to its contradiction with the constitution, resulting in the judges’ selection process to still be done by the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives is currently being more careful in conducting the fit and proper test by establishing a Team of Experts; different from the Panel of Experts previously regulated. This Team of Experts will select the 12 (twelve) judge candidates who have registered, consisting of public figures, practitioners, and academicians. The team consists of former Chairman of the Muhammadiyah Central Leadership Ahmad Syafi’i Maarif, former constitutional judges Laica Marzuki and Natabaya, state administrative law expert Lauddin Marsuni, former Minister of Law and Human Rights Andi Mattalatta, Andalas University constitutional law professor Saldi Isra, researcher and sociologist Musni Umar, and Zein Bajeber from the People’s Consultative Assembly’s Constitutional Forum.
On Wednesday 5 March 2014, after the Team of Experts provided four qualified names to the House of Representatives through the voting mechanism, the House then select Wahidudin Adams (former Director General of Legislation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights) and Aswanto (academician from Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar) as the replacement constitutional judges.
The establishing of the ad hoc Team of Experts should be appreciated as a step in improving the fit and proper test mechanism at the House of Representatives. However, the House of Representatives should examine thoroughly the public officials selection mechanism; keeping in mind that currently there are many terms which describe the authority of the House of Representatives in selecting public officials (selecting, determining, approving, etc.), but there is no standard mechanism of processes yet which differentiate between one and the other. Moreover, the discussion process of the Law on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, House of Regional Representatives and Regional House of Representatives (MD3 Law) can be used as the perfect momentum in designing a public official selection standard that is more comprehensible, transparent and accountable. (SMR)
Criminal Procedure Code Series
Advancements Bill of Rights on Persons with Disabilities in Criminal Procedure Code Amendments
After describing the initial overview on the discourse of the Criminal Procedure Code amendments last edition, this week’s digest will portray the regulations towards the advancements of rights on persons with disabilities in the Criminal Procedure Code Bill. The bill is considered as an urgency, since it is one of the many dimensions of the government’s declaration of commitment and responsibility towards the rights, especially when faced against the law (in this case, the criminal justice process). In any case, persons with disabilities in the criminal justice process can be positioned, as anyone can, as perpetrators (the suspect/accused), witnesses (including victim witnesses), and the victims themselves.
Law No. 8 Year 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code is far from friendly towards persons with disabilities. One example can be seen in the qualifications of witnesses, as regulated in Article 1 No. 26; a witness is one who hears, sees, and experiences personally. So what of those who don’t possess the ability to hear or see? The Criminal Procedure Code has not given any affirmative steps, and only contains two articles that regulate persons with disabilities; Article 53 and 178. Both these articles only regulate on the presence of an interpreter for the accused or the victims who are mute, deaf and illiterate. Also, the regulation is only valid at the stage of trial examinations, not from the start of the investigation process. The Bill on the Criminal Procedure Code also has not improved from the flaws of this particular regulation, which also only provides 2 articles; Article 91 paragraph (2) and Article 168, which the materials are no different from the Criminal Procedure Code regulations.
The Criminal Procedure Code amendment is an entry point for improving the flaws in regulating the rights on persons with disabilities when faced with the criminal justice process. Firm regulations towards the responsibilities of the government and law enforcement officials are much needed, not to mention the compliance towards principles arranged in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities already ratified through Law No. 19 Year 2011. Several principles, such as the acknowledgement of an aide, expansion of categories, and increasing the degree of needs towards persons with disabilities are a minimum standard, which are only seen fitting to be accommodated in the amendments. In addition, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention, in the Government Regulation regarding the implementation guidelines of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is a need to establish appropriate trainings for law enforcement officials. (MSG)