- The Discourse to Ease Up the Rule on Alcoholic Beverages Sale
- Scholars’ Voices for Termination of Bambang Widjojanto’s Case
- After One Year, House of Representatives Only Passed 3 Bills
- Indonesian Supreme Court Allows Multi Bar in Attorney’s Oath
Legal Policy
The Discourse to Ease Up the Rule on Alcoholic Beverages Sale
The Government through the Ministry of Trade plans to ease up the Director General Rules of Domestic Trade No. 04/PDN/PER/4/2015 on Technical Guidelines for Controlling the Distribution and Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Group A. The regulation is an implementing regulation from Regulation No. 20/M-DAG/PER/4/2014 as amended by Regulation No. 06/M-DAG/PER/I/2015 which prohibits the sale of class A alcoholic beverages in the retailers and minimarkets. The idea to ease up the regulation will be done by giving authority to regional governments to establish which areas produce retail licenses to sell alcoholic beverages with a certain level. The plan is a part of the Government’s Economic Policy Package issued on September 9, 2015.
Under the Regional Governmental, the regional has the right to establish a policy for organizing the local government affairs under the authority of the Regional. On June 18 2013, Supreme Court made their decision of the Presidential Decree No. 3 Year 1997 on Monitoring and Controlling Liquor. The decree was declared invalid because the legal basis for the establishment has been revoked. On their decision, the Supreme Court ordered the Government or the Regional Government to issue regulations governing the control and supervision of alcoholic beverages. Include in their decision is the urge from the Supreme Court for consider and take necessary measures for the local norms while making the policy.
Both the Law on Regional Government and legal considerations of the Supreme Court could be the basis of a policy to give authority to the local governments. However, the easement of the rules on alcohol should not solely for the sake of economic interests but the national interest. Thus, it will create a balance between national interests with regard to local wisdom in governance. (ED)
CSO
Scholars’ Voices for Termination of Bambang Widjojanto’s Case
Taking place in Indonesia Jentera School of Law (Jentera) on October 2nd 2015, three scholars represents 72 scholars voicing their concerns on the handling on anti-graft commissioners Bambang Widjojanto case, Bivitri Susanti,from Jentera, explained on the subject of opinion, scholars’ view should be seen as moral support for Bambang Widjojanto. The 72 scholars found that procedurally speaking, there were many code violations while handling Bambang Widjojanto’s case. There has been many findings and recommendations related to violations of the procedural code on the case. Among them are from the Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI), Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia (ORI), and the National Human Rights Commission.
Widjojanto is a suspect on the case for directing his witness in a Kotawaringin election dispute case in the Constitutional Court. In fact, the Indonesian Bar Association (Persatuan Advokat Indonesia) Supervisory Commission’s decision concludes that they found no evidence on code of conduct violation by Widjojanto as a lawyer. On the other hand, based on Ombudsman’s recommendation and National Human Rights Commission’s report, there were records of violations committed by the police in conducting the investigation. If his case which categorized as criminalization is being continued, more likely the principle of a fair trial will not met Therefore, the scholars urge the President to instruct the Attorney General issued a Warrant on Termination of Prosecution (SKPP) or other legal action in order to stop Widjojanto’s case in the name of justice and the rule of law. (ED)
Legislation
After One Year, House of Representatives Only Passed 3 Bills
It is approximately one year since October 2014 the House of Representative are being sworn in. Up until now, the House only passed 3 laws from the 39 designated bills of 2015 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas). On percentage, it means the legislation performance only is around 8.1% from overall 2015 Prolegnas target. The first law is the law on the National House of Representatives, Regional House and the Regional Representative Bodies. The next are the law on local elections, and the law on the local government. The politically laden material of these laws makes the public criticized the House for being too self absorbed with their own agenda.
It is true that the House’s mandate should not be perceived as to producing law and legislation function is shared between the House and the Government. But the fact is there are too many uncontrolled dynamics in the House which impacted on the House’s performance. The conflict between factions in House and an excessive amount of time spent during the recess period should come into consideration when assessing House’s legislative performance.
An annual evaluation for the House’s legislative performance should encourage them to take strategic measurement, namely to shorten the recess period, allocate more working hours and redesign the national legislation plan. Since the public has more political awareness after several election, It should came to notion for each member of the House that the prospect of them not to be re-elected could be higher if they keep on making poor performance during their time in the House of Representatives. (RW)
Supreme Court and the Judiciary
Indonesian Supreme Court Allows Multi Bar in Attorney’s Oath
The Law Number 18 Year 2003 on Attorney has adopted a single bar attorney organization. The purpose of adopting single bar system in attorney’s organization is to create efficient system of supervision and enforcement of professional conduct. However, the system has not been successfully implemented. The single bar system has created dissatisfaction over many factions of Indonesia attorney organization due to poor management and handling of power sharing among factions within Indonesia attorney organization. Previously there were eight Attorney’s organizations in Indonesia. The law Number 18/2003 fused all of the organizations into single organization, which names Peradi (Indonesia Bar Organization).
In 2008, several prominent lawyers declared Kongres Advokat Indonesia (Indonesian Attorney Congress/KAI). The organization is a splinter of Peradi. The split off raised a question who has the legitimate authority to recommend attorney candidate to be taken oath as attorney by the Court. To resolve the problem, the Court published several decisions that affirms the legitimacy of Peradi as a legitimate attorney organization to recommend for taking attorney candidates an oath. However, the problem of Indonesian lawyer has not been stop. In 2015, Peradi has been split into three competing factions claiming as legitimate Peradi committee. This happened due to failed congress in Makassar early this year.
In response to the situation, the Supreme Court has wisely taken a move to allow any attorney organization to recommend attorney candidate to be taken oath by the High Court. In the letter allows the multi bar recommendation, the Head of Supreme Court stipulates the reason of the letter is to prevent Indonesia from shortcoming of attorney due to the split off in attorney’s organization, while it also emphasizes the temporary nature of the policy awaiting for the revision of Law Number 18/2003. (GAT)