Supreme Court 'backs' IBRA's power<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The Supreme Court has rejected a proposal filed
\nby the Indonesian Advocates' Association (AAI) to revoke the
\nextraordinary power endowed to the Indonesian Bank Restructuring
\nAgency (IBRA), according to a source at the association.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 1999 governmental
\ndecree No. 17, more popularly known as PP-17, in its judicial
\nreview issued in early December, the source said here on Monday.<\/p>\n
\"The government has no intention to legalize the unfair and
\nunlawful practice through the issuance of PP-17. The motive (of
\nthe issuance) was to accelerate -- amid the emergency economic
\nsituation -- the healing of the ailing banking sector and the
\nrecovery of state assets in an effective, efficient and fast, yet
\nlegalistic manner,\" according to the decision as quoted by the
\nsource.<\/p>\n
The validity of the PP-17 decree, which gave IBRA judicial
\npowers in carrying out its tasks, was challenged by the AAI which
\nfiled a judicial review in August at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
AAI claimed PP-17, which allows IBRA to act like a court, was
\nagainst with the Constitution and other existing laws.<\/p>\n
These functions include the power to issue a restraining
\norder, annul and amend a contract between any two parties,
\ninstall or revoke any party's ownership upon any asset and make a
\nconfiscation order.<\/p>\n
Harry Ponto from the Lontoh & Kailimang law firm, and also an
\nexecutive member of the AAI, expressed disappointment toward the
\nSupreme Court's judicial review decision.<\/p>\n
\"I respect the Supreme Court's decision, but we are still of
\nthe opinion that PP-17 is still legally defective,\" he said over
\nthe phone to The Jakarta Post on Monday.<\/p>\n
He said granting IBRA a wide range of a judicial powers and
\nallowing it to function as a court of law, merely based on PP-17,
\nhad breached a series of existing laws, including the country's
\nown Constitution.<\/p>\n
\"According to Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution, the
\nfunctions and authorities of a court of law can only be carried
\nout strictly by the Supreme Court or any institution based on a
\nlaw, not a governmental decree\" he said.<\/p>\n
He added that IBRA -- whose establishment is based merely on
\nthe governmental decree -- was not qualified to perform the
\nfunctions of a court, according to the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Harry also maintained that the law should not be
\ndiscriminatory, as IBRA, based on PP-17, could breach the
\nConstitution while others could not.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court said that through the eyes of moral justice,
\nPP-17 was not wrong or unlawful, even though it was in the view
\nof justice.<\/p>\n
While rejecting a revocation of PP-17, the Supreme Court,
\nhowever, specifically suggested that the government upgrade PP-17
\nto become a law.<\/p>\n
\"However, we advise PP-17 to be quickly upgraded to become a
\nlaw to prevent more public controversies and to strengthen the
\nlegitimacy of the extra-judicial IBRA,\" it said.(udi)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/supreme-court-backs-ibras-power-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}