DPR's vote on laundering bill may be invalid

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The decision by the House of Representatives (DPR) to endorse the money laundering bill on Monday despite the poor attendance of legislators has raised questions on whether or not the bill could be enacted into law.

Constitutional expert Suwoto from Airlangga University in Surabaya said on Tuesday that the plenary meeting should not have endorsed the bill under such a situation.

"It (the endorsed money laundering bill) lacks legal force. The plenary meeting should have delayed the approval of the bill until a quorum was reached," Suwoto told The Jakarta Post by phone.

Director of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro) Smita Notosusanto concurred with Suwoto, saying that under such conditions the validity of the money laundering bill was debatable.

"The validity of the endorsed money laundering bill is, of course, questionable," she told the Post.

The two were commenting on the House decision to approve on Monday the money laundering bill despite the fact that there were only 49 of the current 489 legislators present by the time the bill was voted on.

The bill will now be submitted to the President to be enacted into law. Theoretically, the President could still return the bill to the House if she finds it to be unsatisfactory, but that is unlikely as the bill was submitted by her government. The bill also could become a law automatically 30 days after its approval by the House.

The House has a total of 500 members but some have either passed away or taken posts in the executive branch and have not been replaced.

At the opening of the plenary meeting on Monday, 248 legislators were present, allowing the Deputy House Speaker Muhaimin Iskandar to open the session. But, as the 10 House factions began to present their final positions on the bill, legislators started leaving the plenary hall and when the time came for them to endorse the bill, only 49 legislators were left.

The poor performance had been shown from early in the morning. The plenary meeting was scheduled to start at 9 a.m., but only 90 legislators showed up on time, prompting Muhaimin to adjourn the meeting until 10 a.m.

Deputy House speaker Tosari Widjaja said on Tuesday that those who had signed the attendance sheet would be held responsible for the legislation regardless of whether or not they stayed for the vote.

He also said that the House's internal regulations only requires a quorum to open a House meeting.

Smita urged legislators to differentiate between requirements that must be fulfilled before opening a meeting and those prior to voting.

She emphasized that articles in the House's internal regulations were two different things.

"The quorum before opening a meeting and that before making a decision are different things," Smita said.

Article 95 of the House Internal Rules:

(1) The head of the meeting can open the session if more than half of its members from more than half of factions in the House have already signed the attendance sheet.

(4) The meeting can make a decision if it meets the quorum stipulated in (article 189) chapter 23.

Article 189:

(1) Each meeting can reach a decision if it is attended by more than half of the intended meeting participants from more than half of factions in the House.