Open Public Debate on RKUHP

KOMPAS/ADRIAN FAJRIANSYAH

Joko Driyono (center, foreground), the former acting chairman of the Indonesian Soccer Association (PSSI), attends the preliminary hearing of his trial on 6 May 2019 at the South Jakarta District Court. Joko is being tried under four articles on the theft of property, including evidence, from the anti-soccer mafia task force in its investigation into the match-fixing case that has crippled the national soccer league. Prosecutors have demanded a maximum penalty of seven years in prison under Article 363, Paragraph (1), points 3 and 4, of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

The House of Representatives (DPR) must open its doors to public consultations before completing deliberations of the revised draft of the Criminal Code (RKUHP).

The substance of the RKUHP is very broad and complex, and touches private matters that could potentially violate human rights. The substance of the RKUHP also could potentially overlap with other laws that regulate specific criminal offenses, such as corruption, drug crimes and human rights violations. Special crimes are also regulated in special laws.

Public criticism on the substance of the RKUHP indicates that the House has failed to accommodate the people’s aspirations. Otherwise, it indicates that the House has accommodated the objections from the public and made revisions, but that it has not communicate the latest revisions to the public, so that the people still believe that the draft needs further revision.

The House is not obliged to complete its deliberations on the RKUHP by a certain date, for example by 17 Aug. 2019 or 30 Sept. 2019. It also does not need to worry about not completing the deliberations, as doing so will not cause a legal vacuum.

It must be admitted, however that the House and the government that finalizes the revised Criminal Code will be recorded in the history of legal reform. Almost all justice ministers dream of giving birth to a renewed Criminal Code. However, such a goal is irrelevant if the RKUHP only serves to create widespread public resistance.

The existing Criminal Code is an inheritance from Dutch colonial rule. This nation has referred to Dutch colonial law for more than a century. The Indonesian Criminal Code was derived from the Wetboek van Strafrecht voor Nederlandsch-Indie (1918; Criminal Code for the Dutch East Indies) and was ratified by Law No. 73/1958. The situation is understandable, but the public’s objections deserve a response.

For this reason, the public must be consulted as broadly as possible so that the people may contribute to the substance of the Criminal Code. Using today\'s digital technology, the DPR can publicly post the latest developments in the deliberations on the Criminal Code, whether in regard to the articles that have been agreed at the House Special Committee level or the articles that civil society still objects to. Today\'s digital system poses no difficulties for the DPR and the government in publicly releasing information on the latest developments in the RKUHP deliberations and thereby involving the public.

The DPR does indeed represent the people under a representative system. Therefore, consulting voters is also a political necessity. For example, the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) and the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) underline certain stipulations in the draft bill, particularly those that cover gross human rights violations. The Human Rights Court Law stipulates a minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum sentence of 25 years for human rights violations, but the RKUHP stipulates punishment ranging from 5 to 20 years.

The RKUHP also contains potentially overlapping articles that could weaken efforts to eradicate corruption, whereas corruption crimes are covered in the Corruption Law. The RKUHP’s inclusion of corruption offenses could jeopardize the existence of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) – an institution that the political elite clearly do not want.