The public outcry continues, demanding that the House of Representatives postpone passing the draft Criminal Code Bill (RKUHP) into law. The present version of the bill contains several controversial stipulations.
By
·5 minutes read
JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The draft Criminal Code Bill (RKUHP), on which the House of Representatives (DPR) and the government reached an agreement during a first-level meeting on 18 Sept., contains several stipulations that threaten women and vulnerable groups, including the poor and customary communities. At the same time, the RKUHP also stipulates a lighter punishment for corruptors.
This has led to continuing public outcry, demanding that the Criminal Code Bill not be passed into law during the House plenary session on 24 Sept. 2019. The government and the House still have room to cancel approving the draft bill and review it in a more open and measured way during the 2019-2024 legislative session.
University students and civil society activists have mounted pressure not to pass the bill into law with a protest on Thursday (19/9/2019) at the Senayan legislative complex in Jakarta. The stretch of Jl. Gatot Subroto in front of the complex was closed and motorists were directed to the Transjakarta bus lane.
Apart from conveying their opposition against several other laws, such as the revised Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law, the protesters also said that the RKUHP could curtail civil rights and democracy, as well as threaten vulnerable groups.
This was evident in the bill’s Article 432, which stipulates that vagrants who disrupted public order on the streets and other public spaces may be fined up to Rp 1 million (US$71.12).
Contradictory
Center of Constitutional Studies director Feri Amsari of Andalas University said that Article 432 of the RKUHP was heavily influenced by a colonial mindset and contradicted Article 34, Point (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulated that the state was responsible for caring for the poor and neglected children.
“Article 432 of the RKUHP is a potential overcriminalization of the poor, whose constitutional rights to [state welfare] is guaranteed in the Constitution,” said Feri.
Article 432 did not provide clear definition of “vagrants who disrupt public order”, so it could also criminalize other groups, including buskers, parking attendants and neglected persons with psychosocial disabilities. Feri said this could give rise to potential complications in law enforcement, as these so-called vagrants would not have the resources to pay the stipulated fine.
Separately, Maidina Rahmawati of the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) said that the RKUHP still contained at least eight crucial materials on women and vulnerable groups.
This was ironic, as the punishment for certain acts of corruption was lighter in the RKUHP than in the Corruption Law.
One example was self-enrichment, which was stipulated in Article 604 of the RKUHP and adopted from Article 2 of the Corruption Law. The Criminal Code Bill stipulates a minimum sentence of only two years in prison for the crime, half the minimum sentence of four years stipulated in the Corruption Law. The minimum fine had also been reduced from Rp 200 million to Rp 10 million.
The abuse of authority or position stipulated in Article 605 of the Criminal Code Bill, which was adopted from Article 3 of the Corruption Law, also had a reduced fine of Rp 10 million, whereas the Corruption Law stipulated Rp 50 million.
Meanwhile, a woman who aborted her pregnancy could face four years behind bars.
No standards
ICJR executive director Anggara said that he could detect no clear standards in how the punishments in the RKUHP had been determined by the bill’s formulation team, which comprised the House RKUHP Working Committee and government representatives.
"The punishment for several crimes were determined based on the feelings of the members of the formulation team."
House working committee member Nasir Djamil of the Prosperous Justice Party faction said that the rationalization at the working committee-level deliberation behind the punishment for several crimes were imperfect. He said that the punishment for several crimes were determined based on the feelings of the members of the formulation team.
“For instance, why two years of imprisonment? Oftentimes, there is no answer or explanation, considerations and feelings are enough, so two years is adequate. This has to be improved in the future. There has to be clear formulation,” said Nasir.
Determining the punishment for the crime of indecency was relatively harder. “In the end, the punishments were adopted from other laws or based on considerations and feelings,” he said.
Nasir denied that the state imposed excessive punishment for certain crimes in the RKUHP. “We just want to ensure that public order is upheld,” he said.
Nasir said that the article on vagrants was written with an aim to ensure public order. It was hoped that the article would encourage the state to more rigorously protect and provide care for the poor and neglected people. “So the perspective is the reverse, it must be viewed that the state must bear the responsibility to prevent its citizens from living as vagrants. This becomes a huge job moving forward,” he said.
The RKUHP also imposes a two-year transitional period prior to its enactment. Within these two years, the government must disseminate information and consult on the implementation of the RKUHP so that its enactment would be smooth. “This is hard work, heavy work,” said Nasir.
However, as it appeared that many issues still surrounded the RKUHP, Feri said that the House and the government should not rush in passing it into law on 24 Sept. “Many stipulations feel forced. If we enact this law, we will experience a setback. The House and the government should prioritize the public’s feelings and aspirations,” he said.