Worrying sign from House?
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.