Megawati told to reject money laundering bill

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Constitutional law expert Harun Alrasyid suggested on Wednesday that President Megawati Soekarnoputri object to the House of Representatives-endorsed money laundering bill due to the low attendance by legislators when the bill was being voted on.

"The President should not sign the bill into law as it lacks (persuasive) legal force," Harun, of the University of Indonesia, told The Jakarta Post.

He said the newly-endorsed bill would provide loopholes for judges or prosecutors involved in money-laundering trials.

Harun, a legal adviser to former president Abdurrahman Wahid, condemned the poor attendance of legislators, whom he said were unaware of the significance of the bill.

Fellow expert Suwoto, of Airlangga University in Surabaya, had earlier argued for the same reasons that the money-laundering bill approved by the House on Tuesday lacked legal force.

Only 49 legislators were present when the bill was formally passed at the end of a plenary House session. There were 248 legislators listed for attendance prior to the session.

Theoretically, the President could return the bill to the House. There was a precedent for this set when then President Soeharto refused to sign the House-endorsed broadcasting bill in 1997 due to its unsatisfactory content.

House legislators, however, defended on Wednesday the legality of the money-laundering bill regardless of the poor attendance during the vote.

Deputy House Speaker A.M. Fatwa of the National Mandate Party (PAN) said the legal status of the bill was undeniable.

"With all its shortcomings, the bill is still valid. Those who signed the attendance sheet can be held accountable for the legislation," Fatwa said after consulting with faction leaders on Wednesday.

Legislator Seto Harianto of the Love the Nation Democratic Party (PDKB) said the low turnout of legislators should be debated in the public arena.

Another legislator, Astrid S. Susanto, defended the legislation, saying that the attendance sheet was conclusive evidence of the House's approval of the bill.

But those arguments were strongly opposed by Harun, who said that physical attendance was mandatory for decision-making in the House.

"The case shows that the legislators lie to themselves," said Harun.

Article 95(1) of the House's internal regulations states: A session may be convened if more than half of the House members from more than half of the factions have signed the attendance sheet.

Article 189(1) states: A meeting can reach a decision if it is attended by more than half of the intended participants from more than half of the factions in the House.

Based on common sense or logic, Harun said, a plenary session required the physical presence of the legislators before the meeting could arrive at a decision.

Meanwhile, fellow expert Hamid Awaluddin urged legislators to amend the internal regulations as they contained too many loopholes.

In order to avoid a similar case arising, Hamid said, whoever presided over a House session should count the number of legislators in attendance.

"It's comical that a piece of legislation can be approved based on the presence of less than 50 legislators," he said.