DPR's vote on laundering bill may be invalid<\/p>\n
Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The decision by the House of Representatives (DPR) to endorse the
\nmoney laundering bill on Monday despite the poor attendance of
\nlegislators has raised questions on whether or not the bill could
\nbe enacted into law.<\/p>\n
Constitutional expert Suwoto from Airlangga University in
\nSurabaya said on Tuesday that the plenary meeting should not have
\nendorsed the bill under such a situation.<\/p>\n
\"It (the endorsed money laundering bill) lacks legal force.
\nThe plenary meeting should have delayed the approval of the bill
\nuntil a quorum was reached,\" Suwoto told The Jakarta Post by
\nphone.<\/p>\n
Director of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro) Smita
\nNotosusanto concurred with Suwoto, saying that under such
\nconditions the validity of the money laundering bill was
\ndebatable.<\/p>\n
\"The validity of the endorsed money laundering bill is, of
\ncourse, questionable,\" she told the Post.<\/p>\n
The two were commenting on the House decision to approve on
\nMonday the money laundering bill despite the fact that there were
\nonly 49 of the current 489 legislators present by the time the
\nbill was voted on.<\/p>\n
The bill will now be submitted to the President to be enacted
\ninto law. Theoretically, the President could still return the
\nbill to the House if she finds it to be unsatisfactory, but that
\nis unlikely as the bill was submitted by her government. The bill
\nalso could become a law automatically 30 days after its approval
\nby the House.<\/p>\n
The House has a total of 500 members but some have either
\npassed away or taken posts in the executive branch and have not
\nbeen replaced.<\/p>\n
At the opening of the plenary meeting on Monday, 248
\nlegislators were present, allowing the Deputy House Speaker
\nMuhaimin Iskandar to open the session. But, as the 10 House
\nfactions began to present their final positions on the bill,
\nlegislators started leaving the plenary hall and when the time
\ncame for them to endorse the bill, only 49 legislators were left.<\/p>\n
The poor performance had been shown from early in the morning.
\nThe plenary meeting was scheduled to start at 9 a.m., but only 90
\nlegislators showed up on time, prompting Muhaimin to adjourn the
\nmeeting until 10 a.m.<\/p>\n
Deputy House speaker Tosari Widjaja said on Tuesday that those
\nwho had signed the attendance sheet would be held responsible for
\nthe legislation regardless of whether or not they stayed for the
\nvote.<\/p>\n
He also said that the House's internal regulations only
\nrequires a quorum to open a House meeting.<\/p>\n
Smita urged legislators to differentiate between requirements
\nthat must be fulfilled before opening a meeting and those prior
\nto voting.<\/p>\n
She emphasized that articles in the House's internal
\nregulations were two different things.<\/p>\n
\"The quorum before opening a meeting and that before making a
\ndecision are different things,\" Smita said.<\/p>\n
Article 95 of the House Internal Rules:<\/p>\n
(1) The head of the meeting can open the session if more than
\nhalf of its members from more than half of factions in the House
\nhave already signed the attendance sheet.<\/p>\n
(4) The meeting can make a decision if it meets the quorum
\nstipulated in (article 189) chapter 23.<\/p>\n
Article 189:<\/p>\n
(1) Each meeting can reach a decision if it is attended by more
\nthan half of the intended meeting participants from more than
\nhalf of factions in the House.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dprs-vote-on-laundering-bill-may-be-invalid-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}