Worrying sign from House?<\/p>\n
The passing of the bill on the free trade status of Batam
\nisland into law last week without government approval is a
\ndisturbing sign. It is disturbing, because the House of
\nRepresentatives (DPR) can only endorse a bill when the government
\nis also in agreement, according to the amended 1945 Constitution.
\nThis is so, despite the House's right to initiate legislation as
\nenshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
The House and the government had agreed on Sept. 10 to drop
\nthe bill following their inability to agree on it. The
\nConstitution says the bill should not have been debated again by
\nthe House during this sitting period.<\/p>\n
Alas, a plenary session began on the evening of Sept. 14 with
\nsession head deputy speaker Tosari Wijaya banging his gavel and
\npassing the bill into law. This was a month after the bill was
\nfirst deliberated in the House.<\/p>\n
\"The endorsement was made after all factions in the House
\ninsisted the bill be passed into law to help boost legal
\ncertainty and investment in Batam,\" Tosari said after the
\nsession.<\/p>\n
No wonder government representatives, the Minister of Justice
\nand Human Rights, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, and Minister of Trade and
\nIndustry Rini Soewandi were caught by surprise. Both had opposed
\nthe bill during the session.<\/p>\n
Disputed articles in the bill included the question of whether
\nall or only part of Batam island should be turned into a free
\ntrade zone. The government favored limiting the free trade zone
\nstatus only to certain industrial areas on the island. It had
\nargued that by giving a half-million people on Batam island tax
\nexemptions the House would be discrimating against the other 220
\nmillion Indonesians.<\/p>\n
The other disputed article revolved around the authority to
\nmanage seaports and the airport in Batam, which is only 20
\nkilometers from Singapore.<\/p>\n
The government wanted the authority to remain in the hands of
\ncentral government, while the House insisted the authority should
\nbe held by the local administration.<\/p>\n
People may wonder whether the House has acted too hastily by
\nacting unilaterally at the end of its term. If so, what has
\nmotivated it? Putting possible business influence aside, we have
\nto be aware the House had prepared the bill in 2001. The draft
\nwas rejected by the government that only finished its draft early
\nthis year. Lack of patience with the slow system is one possible
\ncause.<\/p>\n
The House might have good, solid reasons behind its overly
\nassertive stance. During the three decades of the Soeharto era
\nuntil 1998, the House was often referred to as a rubber-stamp
\nagency for its frequent inactivity. Most bills were drafted by
\nthe government and the House was left with little to do but to
\nokay them.<\/p>\n
What is worrying is the House's seeming reluctance to iron out
\nits differences with the government. The House is going too far
\nby forcing its will on the government. By doing so, it risks
\nviolating the Constitution.<\/p>\n
If presidential candidate Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wins the
\nSept. 20 election, such House behavior could cause important
\nlegislation to grind to a halt.<\/p>\n
What if all objections from the government are ignored by the
\nHouse? As a candidate from a small party, Susilo would face a
\nhuge challenge from the legislature. While the government will
\nstill be able to change the law, the process could become
\nincreasingly slow and costly. As it stands now, the bill will
\npass into law 30 days after it is endorsed regardless if it is
\nsigned or not by the president.<\/p>\n
Perhaps it would be a good idea to consider amending the
\nConstitution's Article 20, which contains some ambiguity in its
\nwording about the House's power to draft a bill and to pass it
\ninto law.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/worrying-sign-from-house-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}