Legal Policy
The FPI Issue: Enforce the Criminal Code, Hand It Over to the Police
PSHK has released a few pointers on how the Front Pembela Islam (FPI / Islamic Defenders Front) issue should be handled from a legislative point of view:
- The firm steps taken by the Jakarta Metropolitan Police in immediately arresting and setting suspects should be appreciated.
- Enforce the Criminal Code. It is more than enough to be used in capturing perpetrators and setting suspects.
- When taking action towards the FPI as an organization, it should be done firstly by forming a legal framework that protects the freedom of association. In concrete terms, this can be done by immediately discussing and passing the Bill on Associations.
- Do not use the Ormas Law (Law on Societal Organizations / UU Organisasi Kemasyarakatan) because it is a product of the New Order regime.
- Law No. 17 Year 2013 on Societal Organizations is still a threat towards the freedom of association in Indonesia. The Jokoki-JK administration should immediately take initiative in revoking this Law.
- So far, the Ormas Law has been in force for one year and the threats that have occurred are instead towards the CSOs (civil society organizations) that are pro democracy, anti corruption, and anti violence. In Lampung, there is a directive that CSOs that have not registered to the Kesbangpol (Direktur Jeneral Kesatuan Bangsa dan Politik / Directorate General of National and Political Unity) should not be served. In Mataram, the Kesbangpol threatens to dismiss problematic CSOs. This has also occurred in several other provinces. All this is caused by the ambiguous and chaotic legal framework of the Ormas Law.
- By paying attention to this condition, it becomes clearer that the rise of the Ormas Law is not aiming to target organizations that are perpetrators of violence. The rise of the Ormas Law is the rise of a New Order regime law that threatens the freedom of association in Indonesia. (EN)
House of Representatives
The Discourse of Expanding House Commissions
The proposal of commission expansion in The House of Representatives by the Red and White Coalition (Koalisi Merah Putih) has surfaced. On Monday, 13 October 2014, when House’s leaders held a consultation meeting regarding the number and scope of the future commissions. According to Article 92 paragraph (1) letter f of Law No. 17 Year 2014 of the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, House of Regional Representatives, and Regional House of Representatives (MPR, DPR, DPD dan DPRD / MD3 Law) and Article 23 on the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, the Deliberation Board (Badan Musyawarah) or House of Representatives leadership could schedule consultation meetings with political party leaders at the beginning of the House of Representatives tenure to determine: a) the number of commission, b) partners of the commissions, and c) the number of members in the House of Representatives working units.
At this moment, the discourse is still being developed and has just reached discussions on the number of commissions; from 11 proposed to 16. Such proposal could rise cause rejections from the Jokowi-JK’s supporting coalition, the Great Indonesia Coalition. The role of commissions are very strategic, according to Article 97 paragraph (8) of the MD3 Law, include discussing bills, discussing and following up results of the Supreme Audit Board that relate to the scope of their tasks, conduct supervision towards the Government’s policies, discussing and setting the budget for institutional or ministerial programs.
While implementing of those functions, the commissions are also equipped with the right of interpellation, right of inquiry, and right towards freedom of expression.
Rejections become more evidently sharp when the proposal for commission expanding option was associated with elections process of the commission leaders, which is done by a package system based on Article 97 paragraph (2) of the MD3 Law and Article 57 paragraph (2) of the Standing Orders. Even so, the idea of commission expansion does not always have to be rejected when set in the framework of raising productivity and effectiveness towards the House of Representatives’ performance, especially regarding the supervision and legislative functions.
Therefore, the proposal for commission expansion at the current House of Representatives should not merely be set in a political framework, but there should also be deep and thorough study on the needs and work load of the House of Representatives. The argument that the current House of Representatives’ enormous workload is affecting their performance makes sense. For example, Commission I handles at least four fields of work; international relations, intelligence, defense, and telecommunications and informatics. Stronger adjustments are needed for the House of Representatives members in order to master all four fields. Regarding partners, for example; Commission I and II have up to 14 partners each. In addition, there should also be a cost-benefit analysis regarding commission expansion, starting from increased focus and performance effectiveness, up to the addition of infrastructure such as rooms, staffs, and secretarial tools. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether it is better off to add commissions or reactivate sub-commissions that perform temporarily based on issues at hand. In order to reduce the element of political ration distribution, the election of commission leaderships based on the package system in the MD3 Law and Standing Orders should preferably pay attention to their experience, competence, and capabilities. In addition, of course, the House of Representatives preferably should wait and adjust the commissions with the cabinet structure and posture of Jokowi-JK, which is still being compiled. (MSG)
House of Representatives
The Red and White Coalition and the 122 Laws Amendment Project
Chairman of the Presidium of the Red and White Coalition, Aburizal Bakrie, has stated a plan in amending 122 Laws in the upcoming House of Representatives tenure. The reason put forth by Aburizal Bakrie was in order to direct Indonesia’s democracy back to the Pancasila.
Based on the 1945 Constitution, the desire to amend laws (to conduct legislative reviews) is valid since the House of Representatives is one of the parties that establish laws together with the President. The first step that should be done by the House of Representatives is to place the hundred twenty-two (122) laws into the medium-term National Legislation Program. During the 2009-2014 period, the House of Representatives could only handle in amending/revising 59 out of 266 laws. It can be concluded that in the context of quantity, the current revision plan needs to be reconsidered or recompiled on priority basis.
Public involvement should be considered as a vital indicator in achieving quality laws. The involvement should not be seen as mere formality, but also as how arising aspirations can be managed. Therefore, it is important for the Red and White Coalition to immediately release the names of the 122 laws in order to receive public response. Legislation should be put in the public domain instead of merely being consummed by the elite. (MS/ED)