Walhi to refile petition against water law

Walhi to refile petition against water law

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Shortly after its petition was rejected by the Constitutional
Court, the Indonesian Environmental Forum (Walhi) said on
Thursday it planned to file a new one with additional evidence in
a determined bid to challenge the water resources law.

The court rejected on Tuesday a request from Walhi and other
non-governmental organizations for a judicial review of the
controversial law. The plaintiffs argued that the legislation
would turn water into a tradable commodity, sold for profit, thus
jeopardizing the public's ability to afford tap water.

Walhi said the new evidence will include Government Regulation
No. 16/2005 on drinking water systems, issued in March, which is
seen as contrary to Law No. 7/2004 on Water Resources.

For the first time, the court opened the way for the
petitioners to refile the same case if the government is deemed
to have implemented the water law not in line with the court's
interpretations of the law.

The court's verdict is normally final and cannot be
challenged.

In its 523-page verdict, the court deemed that the water law
was geared toward protecting water companies and that
"privatization" of the water sector was not implied.

"The court interpreted it to mean that the state must take
charge of managing water resources, with only limited involvement
by the private sector allowed, if the government fails to do so.
But the law's Article 46 says a private company could fully
participate in the whole process of the development of water
provision system," said Walhi's campaigner P. Raja Siregar on
Thursday.

This, he said, meant that the private companies could manage
water resources in many areas that have not yet been tapped by
the government, many of which remain due to the government's
limited capacity.

The court also agrees with the law's Article 26 saying the
management of drinking water should be carried out by state-owned
firms, imposing only management service fees.

However, the law says in Article 60 that the components to
determine the rate that customers pay also should include
unspecified other costs and also profit.

The law also says that state-owned firms can involve
cooperatives, private firms and/or the public if they are unable
to fully carry out their role.

This is different from the court's interpretation -- that it
is the public whose participation should be given priority.

Contradicting articles in the law were actually made as the
basis for two of the nine judges of the court, who produced
dissenting opinions.

"This means that the court was reluctant to reject our
petition, particularly with the dissenting opinions and the
possibility to refile our case," said Raja.

Despite being given another chance, Raja questioned the
feasibility of refiling the same judicial review since, if the
time should arrive, tense public debate on such an unprecedented
policy might thwart the effort.

He also said the petitioners would send a letter to the court
early next week to get a clearer explanation on whether the
clauses oblige the government to issue ancillary regulations in
accordance with the court's interpretation were legally binding.

The government is expected to issue around seven more
ancillary regulations to implement the law, said Raja.

"Because in its ruling, these clauses are only written as
considerations, but not as part of the final verdict. If they're
not part of the verdict itself, thus not legally binding, then
the chance to refile the case is only lip service," he argued.