Civil Society Initiatives
The Persons with Disabilities Bill Working Group Hearing with the House of Representatives Secretary General
On 20 May 2014, PSHK accompanied the Persons with Disabilities Bill Working Group to attend invitation hearing from the Indonesian House of Representatives Secretary General.. On the occasion, the working group handed over the community’s version of the bill l on Persons with Disabilities. The working groups attendance was also a form of support and insistency to immediately ratify the Bill into a Law.
Responding to the initiative, the Secretary General conveyed his gratitude towards the support and participation from the community in the forming of the Law on Persons with Disabilities. The Secretary General stated that his party is doing their best efforts in order for the Bill on Persons with Disabilities to be discussed together with the Government and to be ratified within this period of House of Representatives; not having to wait until the next period. In addition, relating to matters of substance, the Secretary General stated that most of the substance of the community’s proposal draft for the bill has been agreed upon and has already been accommodated in the Secretary General’s version of the bill.
After the hearing, the Persons with Disabilities Working Group will continue to monitor conduct hearings with various stakeholders, especially the House of Representatives Legislative Council as the one who will prepare the Bill on Persons with Disabilities. Aside from hearing with the House’s Secretary General , the hearings will also be done together with Ministries and members of Parliament associated with this issue. (FN)
Constitutional Court
Constitutional Court Ruling on Limitation of Budgeting Authority
The Constitutional Court has granted a judicial review request from the Civil Society Organization (CSO) Coalition, among others for Law No. 27 Year 2009 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, House of Regional Representatives and Regional House of Representatives (UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD/MD3 Law) and Law No. 17 Year 2003 on the State Budget. The Constitutional Court has withdrawn the authority of the House of Representatives Budgeting Authority, which covers a large area, therefore prone to corruption pratices.
With its power beforehand, the Budgeting Authority has the authority to determine budget implementation up until unit 3 (three); which has the same meaning as “activities and types of spending” in detail, which in the State Budget sums up to around 40.000 budget units. In addition, the Budgeting Authority is also stated to have no competency in displaying an asterisk symbol (*) in budget units. With the pretext of disbursement delays, the asterisk marking by the Budgeting Authority has been suspected of shady transactions, which ultimately led to corruption acts.. The case of Wa Ode Nurhayatai few while back is the perfect example of this.
Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-IX/2013 should be commended. Even though not all petitions filed were granted, at least the issue of budget corruption has been reached. The Constitutional Court has interpreted that the authority of determining budgets in detail by the House of Representatives is not in accordance with their function and authority. Instead, the President, as the one who plans and implements the State Budget, should do it. From the constitutional perspective, with this interpretation, it can be assumed that the Constitutional Court want to purify the presidential system in budget submission. In accordance with Article 23 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the President proposes the budget in the form of the State Budget Draft, while the House of Representatives provide its approval. As a side note, this decision must be given attention to in discussing the amendments of the MD3 Law which is currently ongoing. (MSG)
Constitutional Court
Head of Local Government Elections Dispute Settlement: The Power that Nobody Wants
The Constitutional Court declared its power to settle a dispute on the head of local government elections as unconstitutional. The decision come after Akil Mochtar, former Chairman of the Constitutional Court, was arrested for receiving bribes related to the head of the local government election dispute. In the Constitutional Court Decision No. 97/PUU-XI/2013, it argues that the head of local government election dispute is not a part of the general election stipulates in Article 24C of the Constitution. Article 24C of the Constitution stipulates that the Constitutional Court has the power, among others, to settle general election disputes. The argument is inconsistent with its predecessor, Constitutional Court Decision No. 072-073/PUU-II/2004, where in the decision, the Court argued that it is a matter of government policy to define whether the head of local government election is part of the general election or part of the local government regime law. Thus, the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to interfere with such policies.
Despite the interpretation inconsistency, the implication of the decision poses a big question; which agency is going to determine the head of local government election dispute. One rationale in giving the Constitutional Court power to settle the dispute was the fact that the Supreme Court had failed to carry out the task. Before it was part of the Constitutional Court power, the power to settle the head of local government election dispute was vested to the Supreme Court. However, many problems occurred, partly due to the unfamiliarity of Supreme Court judges with general election disputes, which resulted in bad decisions.
The Constitutional Court Decision leaves serious confusion within the Government and House of Representatives alike in deciding which institution can be handed the power to settle the dispute. To answer this question is a challenge; to give the power back to the Supreme Court can create a substantial workload and also pose serious risks of further corruption. While the Constitutional Court through its decision has already declared that the institution does not want to deal with the head of local government election dispute settlement. Consequently, the House and Government are left with only one alternative; set up a new institution in resolving disputes arising from head of local government elections. (GAT)
Supreme Court
PSHK presents Research on Alternative Traffic Violation Case Management in Courts to Chairman of Supreme Court
PSHK alongside the Law and Justice Research and Development Center (Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan), with support from Australia Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ) succeeded in completing their research on alternative traffic violation case management. This was then presented to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Indonesia, Hatta Ali, on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at the Supreme Court. During the meeting, the research team was accompanied by Siti Nurjanah, Head of the Supreme Court’s Body of Law and Justice Research, Development, Education and Training (Balitbangdiklat Kumdil MA), Prof. Dr. Basuki Rekso W and AIPJ’s Senior Manager of Court Reform, Binziad Kadafi. Those who attended also include several leaders of the Supreme Court; Deputy Chairman of Judicial Affairs, Dr. M. Saleh, Chairman of the Chamber of Development, Widayatno Sastra Hardjono, Chairman of the Chamber of Specific Crimes, Artidjo Alkostar, Supreme Court Registrar, Suroso Ono, and chief Justice Dr. Syarifuddin. PSHK was represented by its research team; Eryanto Nugroho, M Nur Sholikin dan Giri Ahmad Taufik. The Supreme Court’s Research and Development Center was represented by Budi Suharyanto and Moch. Iqbal.
Several points presented during the meeting include facts that there are already several courts in Indonesia moves towards a better direction in terms of handling traffic violation cases. Even so, there’s still a need for better coordination, especially with other law enforcement agencies, in order to repair the traffic violation case management system. Several of the recommendations proposed were to review the Law on Traffic and Road Transport, develop a standard on court service standards for managing traffic violation cases, and prohibition of offering ticket services in order to reduce the space for scalpers. Supreme court Chairman, Justice Hatta Ali, also conveyed a recommendation that traffic violation case trials are unnecessary and better subjected to fines. Furthermore, he also agrees that the online approach for traffic violation cases is enough. Online trials were the results of a comparative study of the Supreme Court’s former spokesman in the United States of America. The next agenda for PSHK, supported by AIPJ, is a public seminar in mid-June discussing the result and findings of the research.
The Supreme Court Chairman was very welcome towards the presentation and agreed to reform courts in handling traffic violation cases. He also agreed that there should be a national standard in handling traffic violation cases by referring to several practices done in several Indonesian courts. This step needs to be taken as a temporary solution until a regulation is set where violators no longer need to go through court proceedings. (AW)