The decision by the House of Representatives (DPR) to endorse the

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.

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.

Info-Box

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.