Assembly permits reversal: Meaning?

This is the second article on the government's November plan to loosen its tight grip on the people's political activities, by replacing gathering permits with a set of rulings it says will be more accommodating to the people's aspirations. Noted human rights activist Mulyana W. Kusumah looks at the issue from the legal aspect.

JAKARTA (JP): Minister of Justice Oetojo Oesman's statement on the government's plan last week to abolish gathering permits covered a number of points.

The government, he said, acknowledges that it honors its citizens' rights to assemble and unite, that the gathering permits ruling will be geared to streamline perception among government officials, and that the ruling will remain linked to Article 510 of the Criminal Code and Law No. 5/PNPS/1963.

Organizers of political discussions will no longer have to apply for permits from the police; a letter of notice to the authorities will suffice. The same goes for organizers of scientific discussions; only permits from university rectors will be needed.

Endless debates over permits for political gatherings have, so far, been occurring without any satisfactory result. The public and the government apparatus do not have the same perception over gathering permits and their procedures.

Meanwhile, legal action against violators is rolling, starting with criminal court hearings, under article 510 of the Criminal Code, and the questioning of culprits, under Law No. 5/PNPS/1963, up to various restrictions imposed on certain organizations.

The absence of a comprehensive guideline on the issuance of a gathering permit itself has resulted in "selective" upholding of justice, or even a discriminatory implementation of the ruling. A number of political and mass organizations would learn that not only do they have difficulties in asking for permits but even with the permits in their hands their gatherings could be dissolved anytime. This happens side by side with cases where other organizations have never encounter difficulties in setting up similar activities.

Hence, organizers developed different strategies to bypass the ruling, by choosing gathering sites where permits would be less likely to pose a problem and by following the stages of a permit procedure application to the letter.

A number of independent institutions, like universities, impose "self-censorship", by singling out those speakers who may cause trouble.

The form of the upcoming guidelines, or directive rulings, for political gatherings will depend on a number of factors.

First, what values source will it be attached to? If a dynamic political life is the target, permit processing would be more accommodative to efforts related to the advancement of civil and political rights of the citizens.

On the other hand, if administrative regularity is the target, the guidelines would be more facilitating to the government in managing political affairs.

Second, what laws are used as a basis. Article 510 of the Criminal Code and Law No. 5/PNPS/1963 obviously do not provide "political leeway". This is in line with the spirit of the issuance of the laws, which is to restrict "political freedom". Law No. 5/PNPS/1963 is the product of the Old Order government, to safeguard its political supremacy. Its legitimation and constitutional validity is therefore questionable.

These realities have led to questions: Would it be best to base the upcoming directive rulings not on the Criminal Code but on separate laws under political affairs? Isn't the whole policy driven by a wish to accommodate people's political aspirations?

It is high time to think of preparing a law for the participation of citizens in political matters, which is in line with the spirit of article 28 of the 1945 Constitution. This will free the government from having to ponder drafting separate rulings on various issues, such as the recently abandoned plan to regulate Non-governmental Organizations, street demonstrations and others.

Third, it is important to define the rulings in plain and clear terms, to avoid ambiguous interpretation, as well as clear steps to be followed for their application.

The writer is a lecturer at the University of Indonesia and Executive Director at the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation.