House to skip Perpu, focus on antiterrorism bills

Debbie A. Lubis, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The House of Representatives provided on Saturday the government with more support in the fight against terrorism as it agreed to immediately start deliberating on two antiterrorism bills to eventually replace the regulations in lieu of law on terrorism.

Echoing the government's argument, the House deemed that if it proceeded with discussing the regulations and then rejected them, there would be a void of legal grounds for the government to fight terrorism.

Therefore, the House would directly discuss the antiterrorism bills that -- if passed -- would automatically supersede the regulations, according to Hamdan Zoelva, deputy chairman of the House's Commission I on defense, foreign and political affairs.

"We will try to concentrate on the antiterrorism bills and will revoke the regulations as soon as the bills come into law, so there will be no legal problems," he told The Jakarta Post.

The government has not yet submitted the regulations and the bills to the House, but according to Hamdan, it will be done on Monday.

In a meeting with the commission on Thursday night, Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra asked the House not to discuss the regulations but to directly deliberate upon the bills.

If the House debates the regulations, the chance that the regulations could be scrapped was very possible because a large number of Muslim-based parties' representatives have openly expressed their rejection to the regulations, which they claim target Muslims.

The opponents of the antiterror regulations include the United Development Party (PPP), led by Vice President Hamzah Haz, as well as the Reform Faction, which consists of the Justice Party and the National Mandate Party led by People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) speaker Amien Rais. Combined, the two factions control about one-fifth of the all House seats.

The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), the Indonesian Military/Police and the National Awakening Party factions have expressed their support for the two regulations.

Meanwhile, the Golkar Party faction, with about one-fourth of the seats in the House, has chosen to delay revealing its position until Monday when all factions are expected to read their final positions on the government's antiterrorism drive.

A government regulation in lieu of a law does not need the House's approval to take effect, but if the House rejects it within 30 days it must be withdrawn.

Human rights activists have opposed the regulations which they deemed were prone to rights abuses.

Separately, House deputy speaker Tosari Widjaya from the PPP faction and A.M. Fatwa from the Reform faction shared Hamdan's stance that the House should prioritize the deliberation of the bills.

"I agree if the regulations are effective for a short time because the government took a shortcut in making them. I think the concepts in the bill are more well-prepared," Fatwa told the Post.

Meanwhile, Tosari believed that the antiterrorism bills were more acceptable than the regulations and could be endorsed within two months.

"With these temporary regulations, the government can take immediate measures more quickly than if they were to use the existing Criminal Code to anticipate or tackle rampant terrorist attacks in the country," he told the Post.

Jimly Asshiddiqie, professor of state law at the University of Indonesia, suspected that the move not to debate the regulations and directly deliberate the bills was merely governmental manipulation to fix some loopholes in the regulations since they were made in a relatively short time.

As the House agreed not to discuss the regulations, the government could use the regulations for one year without any approval from the House.

"The 1945 Constitution requires the government to submit these regulations in lieu of law to the House in the next sitting. But, then, it's up to the House whether to let it go or debate them," he told the Post.

As the House decided to proceed with discussing the bills, Jimly called on the public to give input and criticism on how to improve the bills before they were passed into law to make sure that they would not impede the development of democracy.

If the bills pass without much public debate and turn out to be repressive, then it would be the duty of the Supreme Court to conduct a judicial review to protect the rights of the people.