Worrying sign from House?

The passing of the bill on the free trade status of Batam island into law last week without government approval is a disturbing sign. It is disturbing, because the House of Representatives (DPR) can only endorse a bill when the government is also in agreement, according to the amended 1945 Constitution. This is so, despite the House's right to initiate legislation as enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution.

The House and the government had agreed on Sept. 10 to drop the bill following their inability to agree on it. The Constitution says the bill should not have been debated again by the House during this sitting period.

Alas, a plenary session began on the evening of Sept. 14 with session head deputy speaker Tosari Wijaya banging his gavel and passing the bill into law. This was a month after the bill was first deliberated in the House.

"The endorsement was made after all factions in the House insisted the bill be passed into law to help boost legal certainty and investment in Batam," Tosari said after the session.

No wonder government representatives, the Minister of Justice and Human Rights, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, and Minister of Trade and Industry Rini Soewandi were caught by surprise. Both had opposed the bill during the session.

Disputed articles in the bill included the question of whether all or only part of Batam island should be turned into a free trade zone. The government favored limiting the free trade zone status only to certain industrial areas on the island. It had argued that by giving a half-million people on Batam island tax exemptions the House would be discrimating against the other 220 million Indonesians.

The other disputed article revolved around the authority to manage seaports and the airport in Batam, which is only 20 kilometers from Singapore.

The government wanted the authority to remain in the hands of central government, while the House insisted the authority should be held by the local administration.

People may wonder whether the House has acted too hastily by acting unilaterally at the end of its term. If so, what has motivated it? Putting possible business influence aside, we have to be aware the House had prepared the bill in 2001. The draft was rejected by the government that only finished its draft early this year. Lack of patience with the slow system is one possible cause.

The House might have good, solid reasons behind its overly assertive stance. During the three decades of the Soeharto era until 1998, the House was often referred to as a rubber-stamp agency for its frequent inactivity. Most bills were drafted by the government and the House was left with little to do but to okay them.

What is worrying is the House's seeming reluctance to iron out its differences with the government. The House is going too far by forcing its will on the government. By doing so, it risks violating the Constitution.

If presidential candidate Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wins the Sept. 20 election, such House behavior could cause important legislation to grind to a halt.

What if all objections from the government are ignored by the House? As a candidate from a small party, Susilo would face a huge challenge from the legislature. While the government will still be able to change the law, the process could become increasingly slow and costly. As it stands now, the bill will pass into law 30 days after it is endorsed regardless if it is signed or not by the president.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to consider amending the Constitution's Article 20, which contains some ambiguity in its wording about the House's power to draft a bill and to pass it into law.