Civil Society Coalition Rejects Human Rights Law Revision Over Flawed Process and Content
The Civil Society Coalition has rejected the draft revision of Law Number 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which is currently being prepared by the government through the Ministry of Human Rights. The rejection was conveyed because the drafting process lacked meaningful participation and was not comprehensive.
Zainal Arifin, Head of Advocacy and Network at the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), stated that the revision of the Human Rights Law should strengthen the protection and fulfilment of human rights. Therefore, the coalition provided several critical notes on the draft law. ‘First, regarding the restriction of civil rights which has the potential to threaten civic space,’ Zainal said during a press conference titled ‘Problema Revisi UU HAM: Penolakan dan Catatan Kritis’ at the YLBHI building in Central Jakarta on Thursday.
Regarding the threat to civic space, he explained that there are at least seven problematic articles in the draft bill’s public testing version from 11 May. These articles include Article 14, 19, 20, 21, 27, and 49, citing reasons of national security, public order, public morals, and public interest. According to Zainal, the formulation of these articles indeed adopts provisions from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, it fails to integrate the strict limitation principles as stipulated in the Siracusa Principles. ‘The phrases public order, public morals, and national security have the potential to become elastic clauses used to restrict freedom of religion, expression, and assembly,’ he said.
Secondly, the coalition highlighted the narrow protection for human rights defenders and the incomplete regulation of Human Rights Defenders (PPHAM). He noted that although Article 1 paragraph (14) and Article 115 grant juridical recognition to human rights defenders, the formulation is still limited by subjective conditions such as ‘non-violence’ and ‘good faith’, which are vulnerable to narrow interpretation. ‘There is no holistic and responsive mechanism for protection, complaints, risk mitigation, and recovery for human rights defenders,’ Zainal added.
On the same occasion, Kontras Researcher Hans Giovany Yosua stated that the draft bill also lacks procedural independence and poses a threat to the resolution of past gross human rights violations. He explained that the removal of the provision regarding the exception to the non-retroactive principle, previously regulated in Law 39/1999 and now stipulated in Article 18 of the draft bill, creates obstacles for resolving past gross human rights violations. In Article 78, he continued, the regulation of Komnas HAM’s investigative function is also unclear, potentially placing Komnas HAM under the coordination of the Indonesian National Police if referring to the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). ‘This condition narrows the space for Komnas HAM’s independence in handling cases of gross human rights violations involving state actors,’ Hans said.
The coalition also highlighted several other provisions, such as Article 121 paragraph (1) of the draft bill, which is considered not to provide clarity regarding the jurisdiction or court forum authorised to examine petitions or lawsuits for human rights violations. This situation raises concerns about the risk of lawsuits or petitions being declared inadmissible due to unclear absolute competence. Another criticised article is Article 45 paragraph (4) concerning the regulation of forced evictions. The provisions in this article are deemed still limited as they only include protection from loss of housing.
Boy Jerry Even Sembiring, Executive Director of WALHI, stated that another provision criticised by the coalition is the lack of clarity in regulating the functions, authority, and institutional framework of the National Human Rights Institution. According to him, in the draft bill, the Ministry of Human Rights actually holds very large authority in monitoring, supervision, compliance assessment, and follow-up on human rights issues. He continued that the draft is also not yet comprehensive in ensuring that the regulation of the rights of persons with disabilities is fulfilled, as the regulation remains normative and has not adopted a human rights paradigm. ‘The recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights is also still weak,’ Boy said. He explained that while the draft bill regulates the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights, the mechanism is not yet considered adequate to guarantee fulfilment, including the definition of customary land (tanah ulayat). This situation is further exacerbated by the inclusion of a Business and Human Rights approach in the bill. Instead of strengthening the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, he stated that this approach could potentially become a legitimising instrument for business projects located in customary land areas. ‘The coalition urges that the drafting of the Human Rights Bill respects the principle of meaningful participation,’ Boy said.
The Human Rights Bill is included in the 2026 priority national legislation programme (prolegnas). On 11 May, Minister of Human Rights Natalius Pigai stated that the government is targeting the harmonisation process at the Ministry of Law to be completed before the draft bill is submitted to the President in June or July.