The Enactment of National Standardization Law
This week, the House of Representatives enacted the Law on Standardization and Conformity Assessment. Regulating the standardization of goods and services in Indonesia is the concern answered in the new law while the purpose is to protect the economic interests of the industry, government and public. In addition, it also covers safety, security, environmental conservation, social responsibility, and technology. It is expected with this law; betterment on the quality of goods and services in Indonesia will be achieved.
The law’s enactment cannot be separated from the implementation of Law No. 7 Year 1994 on the Ratification of the Agreement on Establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a number of international and regional agreements relating to the supply chain of goods and services. One point in the agreement was regarding the understanding of the standardization of products and services. Indonesia’s products must adjust to this international agreement, as long as the contained materials are still in line with the protection of the topics mentioned in the previous paragraph. Before, Indonesia only had regulations on the Government Regulation level (Government Regulation No.10/200 on National Standardization) with the National Standardization Council (Badan Standardisasi Nasional/BSN) as the authority.
The complicated task of the BSN is already in front of them. The implementation of standardization is a multi-sectored and cross-country issue. After the enactment, socialization of the National Standardization Law must be done massively towards all these sectors. Afterwards, the BSN must conduct an inventory and evaluation towards the national standards to be adjusted to market situations and international standards. Last but not least, the BSN certainly must conduct an inventory and modify the regulations on the implementation of standardizations that are not up to par with the Law on Standardization and Conformity Assessment. (MFA)
The Protection and Fulfillment of Rights towards Victims of Crime
Within the past few decades, there has been a significant growth and shift in paradigm in the criminal justice system. One of the fundamental matters is the reposition towards how the system views victims of crime. From the conceptual point of view, there has been a shift from retributive justice to a restorative one. Retributive justice focuses on retaliation towards offenders (suspect/defendant) by the state, which was then shifted to the direction of restorative justice; returning to the original state before the crime had committed. This significant shift has influenced the main attention of the criminal justice system, which not only just focuses on perpetrators but also victims of crime.
On international level, the shift has been responded by adopting several instruments of laws contain the protection of the rights of victims, such as 1985’s Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. In addition, several instruments on human rights and special rights have also accommodated the same matter, for instance The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), The Convention Against Torture, and many others. On the other hand, on national level, the development has not been that rapid. It can be said that the rights of victims specifically began to be regulated through the establishment of Law No. 26 Year 2000 on the Human Rights Court, although very limited in the context of gross violations of human rights. Then how about the protection and fulfillment of rights towards victims of crime in ordinary criminal case?
The legal foundation of criminal justice in Indonesia, which is Law No. 8 Year 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code, is very limited in terms of protection, especially fulfillment of rights towards victims. It is because the Criminal Procedure Code is still stressing merely on law enforcement; the focus is only on the suspect/defendant. When reading the minutes of the Criminal Procedure Code discussions, there is indeed a discourse to balance law enforcement and victim rights fulfillment. However, it was rejected by lawmakers since it was not in accordance with development ideas back then. Nowadays, the chance to provide space for protection and fulfillment of rights has occurred in line with the discussions of the Criminal Procedure Code revisions and revisions on Law No. 13 Year 2006 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims. Continual support towards improvement for the future Criminal Procedure Code needs to be given in order to reach the balance in the criminal justice system. The mentioned balance is between criminal cases disclosure and the protection and rights fulfillment of victims (MSG).
Effectively Ending the Presidential Election Dispute
The Constitutional Court decision on the 2014 Presidential Election has ended the 3-month national tension. The Constitutional Court jurisdiction over the Presidential election dispute is based on Article 24C paragraph 1, which is further stipulated in Law No. 48 Year 2008 on the Presidential Election. The decision is perceived as final and binding, which there is no other legal or political measure that can be utilized to challenge the decision or overturn the result of the election.
However, despite the fairness and transparency shown during the process in the Constitutional Court, the losing party is still reluctant to accept the decision. Nonetheless, one notable potential issue from the court process is on the time limitation given by the law. The law gives 14 working days in settling the general election dispute. This has raised questions about the judge’s capability to meticulously examine and consider the decision comprehensively because of the overwhelming number of evidence. Consequently, the need to re-evaluate the timelimitation is important to further boost the credibility and integrity of the whole process. (GAT)
House of Representatives
Formation of House Committee in Scrutinizing Presidential Election Still Unclear
A plan for the House of Representatives to establish a special committee to scrutinize last July’s presidential election is supported by factions that backed the Prabowo-Hatta pair. Martin Hutabarat, a legislator from the Great Indonesia Movement Party(Partai Gerkana Indonesia Raya/Gerindra), stated that the process of forming a special committee is underway and will soon be passed in the plenary session. Martinargued that the forming of the special committee is not to scrutinize theConstitutional Court decision that rejected Prabowo-Hatta’s lawsuit, but rather to improve the implementation of upcoming elections. Another member of the Prabowo-Hatta coalition, Nasir Djamil from the Prosperous Justice Party (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera/PKS) believes that the establishment of the special committee is a manifestation of the DPR’s oversight functions over the implementation of presidential election.
A lawmaker from the National Awakening Party (Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa/PKB) Muhaimin Iskandar, who supports Jokowi, stated that despite that forming specialcommittee is guaranteed under law, it would not affect the position of Jokowi as the elected president. The formation of a special committee is set out clearly in the Standing Orders. Article 90 of the Standing Order stipulates that a maximum of 30 House’s member is necessary to form special committee, consisting of each faction’s representative proportionally. The number of members, scope of work, as well as the time period of a special committee will be specified on the plenary session, based on a consultation between the House leaders and each faction’s leaders.
Previously, a lawmaker from the National Mandate Party (Partai Amanat Nasional/PAN), Abdul Hakam Naja, said that a proposal to establish the special requires only the approval from at least 25 members and at least two factions. Referring to his statement, the requirement is in accordance to the procedures to propose the right to inquiry (hak angket) as provided in Article 166 of the Standing Orders. Thus, it is still not clear whether the Prabowo-Hatta coalition in parliament is gathering support for the special committee formation in order to discuss theimprovement of future elections or for proposing the right to inquiry just to scrutinize the implementation of the 2014 presidential election. In terms of the right to inquiry, the House has the right to summon certain state officials to provide information related to the investigated issues. In proposing the right to inquiry, initiators should provide any supporting documents containing policy materials that will be investigated, as well as the grounds or reason for the investigation.
Meanwhile, several legal and political analysts predict that the plan of the special committee formation would fall through, as the House’s period of office is only one month left. However, the PKS politician, Mahfudz Siddiq, affirms that his party will continue to encourage the formation of a special committee, although it should be realized in the House’s next period (2014-2019) which will begin in October. (RA)