Megawati told to reject money laundering bill

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.