Critics agree that law on subversion tough to revoke
Critics agree that law on subversion tough to revoke
JAKARTA (JP): "Let's be realistic", legal expert Loebby Loqman
said when asked if the controversial subversion law would be
revoked.
"I'm not pessimistic or optimistic, but I doubt if it will
happen in the near future," he told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.
Loebby, a law professor at the University of Indonesia, was
commenting on the National Commission on Human Rights' proposal
to revoke the law, which it feels could be interpreted to
encourage the violation of human rights.
After reviewing the law for more than a year, the commission
concluded that the law contradicts the universal norms of human
rights and is incompatible with the Criminal Code.
The law, for example, allows the Attorney General's Office to
detain for up to a year anyone suspected of plotting against the
government. The Criminal Code allows detention for 20 to 40 days.
Debate of the proposal has split into two camps. A number of
legal experts as well as legislators support doing away with the
law, which the government passed in 1963 without House approval.
In the opposing camp, government officials and members of the
ruling Golkar cite the law's protection of the state ideology
Pancasila. Relying on the Criminal Code, they say, is not enough
because it requires evidence.
"If we have to wait for proof, we would have to wait until the
country was destroyed," Attorney General Singgih said recently.
Sudomo, chief of the Supreme Advisory Council, opposes the
proposal, saying without it the country would not have any other
means of coping with threats of subversion.
Other proponents of the law, such as Golkar legislator
Soesanto Bangoennagoro, say the proposal is unnecessary because
the Soeharto government rarely applies the law and that arbitrary
arrests are not made.
The maximum penalty of death, as the law mandates, is still
relevant, he said, adding that even the United States has similar
laws.
Muladi and Charles Himawan, both members of the human rights
body, continued with the campaign over the weekend, calling for
the abolition of the law.
Himawan said revocation will produce many gains legally and
diplomatically.
"By scrapping the law, Indonesia will improve its image in the
international forum," he told the Post. Many anti-Indonesian
government campaigners have criticized the country's human rights
record because of the existence of the law, he added.
There are domestic benefits to be gained as well. "Our people
need peace of mind in order to develop (the country) which can be
provided by abolishing the law," said Himawan.
Muladi said the law is no longer relevant and runs counter to
the public's demand for democratization. "If the law is
maintained, I'm afraid there will be more violations of human
rights."
Muladi also said that the law is a reflection of
"over-criminalization". "The law is not proportional because it
creates greater leeway for violation of human rights than for its
protection," said the professor of law from Diponegoro University
in Semarang.
Muladi, however, is optimistic that the government will heed
the calls for change. A compromise might have to be sought to
satisfy all parties, he said.
Instead of being revoked, the law could be revised or
supplemented with the various international legal instruments to
protect human rights, he said.
Soesanto is one supporter of revising the law, adding that the
law's chapters on economic crimes should be dropped because they
are no longer relevant in today's global economy.
Soesanto was Indonesia's first prosecutor to successfully
demand the death penalty for a man charged with subverting the
state economy in 1964.
Loebby and Muladi also believe the Criminal Code should be
revised. The existing Criminal Code, Loebby said, adequately
deals with the activities of underground organizations or
attempts on the President's life.
"But there is always room for improvement," Loebby said,
adding that the government is likely to replace the law before
revoking it.
Himawan said he remains optimistic the government will
eventually revoke the law. "If the argument is that (political
crimes such as subversion) are not covered by other laws, it's
not true," he said. (swe/har)