Walhi to refile petition against water law<\/p>\n
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Shortly after its petition was rejected by the Constitutional
\nCourt, the Indonesian Environmental Forum (Walhi) said on
\nThursday it planned to file a new one with additional evidence in
\na determined bid to challenge the water resources law.<\/p>\n
The court rejected on Tuesday a request from Walhi and other
\nnon-governmental organizations for a judicial review of the
\ncontroversial law. The plaintiffs argued that the legislation
\nwould turn water into a tradable commodity, sold for profit, thus
\njeopardizing the public's ability to afford tap water.<\/p>\n
Walhi said the new evidence will include Government Regulation
\nNo. 16\/2005 on drinking water systems, issued in March, which is
\nseen as contrary to Law No. 7\/2004 on Water Resources.<\/p>\n
For the first time, the court opened the way for the
\npetitioners to refile the same case if the government is deemed
\nto have implemented the water law not in line with the court's
\ninterpretations of the law.<\/p>\n
The court's verdict is normally final and cannot be
\nchallenged.<\/p>\n
In its 523-page verdict, the court deemed that the water law
\nwas geared toward protecting water companies and that
\n\"privatization\" of the water sector was not implied.<\/p>\n
\"The court interpreted it to mean that the state must take
\ncharge of managing water resources, with only limited involvement
\nby the private sector allowed, if the government fails to do so.
\nBut the law's Article 46 says a private company could fully
\nparticipate in the whole process of the development of water
\nprovision system,\" said Walhi's campaigner P. Raja Siregar on
\nThursday.<\/p>\n
This, he said, meant that the private companies could manage
\nwater resources in many areas that have not yet been tapped by
\nthe government, many of which remain due to the government's
\nlimited capacity.<\/p>\n
The court also agrees with the law's Article 26 saying the
\nmanagement of drinking water should be carried out by state-owned
\nfirms, imposing only management service fees.<\/p>\n
However, the law says in Article 60 that the components to
\ndetermine the rate that customers pay also should include
\nunspecified other costs and also profit.<\/p>\n
The law also says that state-owned firms can involve
\ncooperatives, private firms and\/or the public if they are unable
\nto fully carry out their role.<\/p>\n
This is different from the court's interpretation -- that it
\nis the public whose participation should be given priority.<\/p>\n
Contradicting articles in the law were actually made as the
\nbasis for two of the nine judges of the court, who produced
\ndissenting opinions.<\/p>\n
\"This means that the court was reluctant to reject our
\npetition, particularly with the dissenting opinions and the
\npossibility to refile our case,\" said Raja.<\/p>\n
Despite being given another chance, Raja questioned the
\nfeasibility of refiling the same judicial review since, if the
\ntime should arrive, tense public debate on such an unprecedented
\npolicy might thwart the effort.<\/p>\n
He also said the petitioners would send a letter to the court
\nearly next week to get a clearer explanation on whether the
\nclauses oblige the government to issue ancillary regulations in
\naccordance with the court's interpretation were legally binding.<\/p>\n
The government is expected to issue around seven more
\nancillary regulations to implement the law, said Raja.<\/p>\n
\"Because in its ruling, these clauses are only written as
\nconsiderations, but not as part of the final verdict. If they're
\nnot part of the verdict itself, thus not legally binding, then
\nthe chance to refile the case is only lip service,\" he argued.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/walhi-to-refile-petition-against-water-law-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}