Judicial review urged for broadcast bill
Judicial review urged for broadcast bill
Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The Indonesian Press and Broadcasting Society (MPPI) is planning
to file for a Supreme Court judicial review of the broadcasting
bill on the grounds that it contains articles that run contrary
to the 1945 Constitution.
The bill, which was approved by the special House of
Representatives committee charged with its deliberation on
Thursday, is scheduled for endorsement on Nov. 25 during a House
plenary session.
"As soon as the bill is signed by the President, we will ask
the Supreme Court to review it," MPPI chairman Leo Batubara told
The Jakarta Post on Friday.
The MPPI and other broadcasting associations had submitted
their views to both the special committee and State Minister for
Communications and Information Syamsul Mu'arif, but they were not
acted upon.
Meanwhile, the secretary-general of the Indonesian Television
Association (ATVSI), Nurhadi Purwosaputro, and the news director
of Trans TV television, Satrio Arismunandar, both expressed
disappointment with certain articles in the bill.
Leo claimed that the role of the government in broadcasting as
stipulated in the broadcasting bill was not in line with Article
28 (f) of the 1945 Constitution.
This article says that everyone has the right to communicate,
to receive information, to develop their personalities and social
environment, and to seek, obtain, possess, store, analyze and
disseminate information using all available means.
Referring to Article 28 (f), Leo stressed that obtaining
information was a public right. Therefore, the government should
not interfere in this area.
The broadcasting bill provided ample room for the government
to meddle in broadcasting affairs through 12 articles.
Besides being repugnant to the Constitution, Leo said that the
imposition of what he described as censorship by the bill ran
contradictory to the ethos of the state, which was based upon the
rule of law.
Leo said that this showed that both legislators and the
minister were more interested in a power-orientated state rather
than a law-orientated state.
"The imposition of censorship implies an effort to strengthen
the powerholders. This constitutes unwarranted intervention. We
should strengthen the legal system by adopting a code of conduct
instead of censorship," Leo added.
After the agreement on Thursday, the minister and the
legislators acknowledged there were contentious articles in the
bill.
But, they claimed that the public would be able to have their
views heard by the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), a
regulatory body to be set up later.
Commenting on this, Leo simply said that he had frequently
submitted input to the special committee during the deliberation
process, but none of it had been accommodated.
"Therefore, I think it's impossible that the KPI will listen
to our views," he said.
Meanwhile, Nurhadi and Satrio were also concerned about the
article which bans television stations from broadcasting
nationwide.
They said that this would entail major losses from the
business point of view as they had already invested heavily in
building relay stations in remote areas.