Assembly permits reversal: Meaning?<\/p>\n
This is the second article on the government's November plan
\nto loosen its tight grip on the people's political activities, by
\nreplacing gathering permits with a set of rulings it says will be
\nmore accommodating to the people's aspirations. Noted human
\nrights activist Mulyana W. Kusumah looks at the issue from the
\nlegal aspect.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Minister of Justice Oetojo Oesman's statement on
\nthe government's plan last week to abolish gathering permits
\ncovered a number of points.<\/p>\n
The government, he said, acknowledges that it honors its
\ncitizens' rights to assemble and unite, that the gathering
\npermits ruling will be geared to streamline perception among
\ngovernment officials, and that the ruling will remain linked to
\nArticle 510 of the Criminal Code and Law No. 5\/PNPS\/1963.<\/p>\n
Organizers of political discussions will no longer have to
\napply for permits from the police; a letter of notice to the
\nauthorities will suffice. The same goes for organizers of
\nscientific discussions; only permits from university rectors will
\nbe needed.<\/p>\n
Endless debates over permits for political gatherings have, so
\nfar, been occurring without any satisfactory result. The public
\nand the government apparatus do not have the same perception over
\ngathering permits and their procedures.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, legal action against violators is rolling, starting
\nwith criminal court hearings, under article 510 of the Criminal
\nCode, and the questioning of culprits, under Law No. 5\/PNPS\/1963,
\nup to various restrictions imposed on certain organizations.<\/p>\n
The absence of a comprehensive guideline on the issuance of a
\ngathering permit itself has resulted in \"selective\" upholding of
\njustice, or even a discriminatory implementation of the ruling. A
\nnumber of political and mass organizations would learn that not
\nonly do they have difficulties in asking for permits but even
\nwith the permits in their hands their gatherings could be
\ndissolved anytime. This happens side by side with cases where
\nother organizations have never encounter difficulties in setting
\nup similar activities.<\/p>\n
Hence, organizers developed different strategies to bypass the
\nruling, by choosing gathering sites where permits would be less
\nlikely to pose a problem and by following the stages of a permit
\nprocedure application to the letter.<\/p>\n
A number of independent institutions, like universities,
\nimpose \"self-censorship\", by singling out those speakers who may
\ncause trouble.<\/p>\n
The form of the upcoming guidelines, or directive rulings, for
\npolitical gatherings will depend on a number of factors.<\/p>\n
First, what values source will it be attached to? If a dynamic
\npolitical life is the target, permit processing would be more
\naccommodative to efforts related to the advancement of civil and
\npolitical rights of the citizens.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, if administrative regularity is the target,
\nthe guidelines would be more facilitating to the government in
\nmanaging political affairs.<\/p>\n
Second, what laws are used as a basis. Article 510 of the
\nCriminal Code and Law No. 5\/PNPS\/1963 obviously do not provide
\n\"political leeway\". This is in line with the spirit of the
\nissuance of the laws, which is to restrict \"political freedom\".
\nLaw No. 5\/PNPS\/1963 is the product of the Old Order government,
\nto safeguard its political supremacy. Its legitimation and
\nconstitutional validity is therefore questionable.<\/p>\n
These realities have led to questions: Would it be best to
\nbase the upcoming directive rulings not on the Criminal Code but
\non separate laws under political affairs? Isn't the whole policy
\ndriven by a wish to accommodate people's political aspirations?<\/p>\n
It is high time to think of preparing a law for the
\nparticipation of citizens in political matters, which is in line
\nwith the spirit of article 28 of the 1945 Constitution. This will
\nfree the government from having to ponder drafting separate
\nrulings on various issues, such as the recently abandoned plan to
\nregulate Non-governmental Organizations, street demonstrations
\nand others.<\/p>\n
Third, it is important to define the rulings in plain and
\nclear terms, to avoid ambiguous interpretation, as well as clear
\nsteps to be followed for their application.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the University of Indonesia and
\nExecutive Director at the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/assembly-permits-reversal-meaning-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}