LRWD I N D O N E S I A
Legal Reform Weekly Digest
Edition XXIV/July/2013
Indonesia LRWD is published by Indonesian Centre for Law and Policy
Studies (www.pshk.or.id).
This weekly newsletter provides info, updates, and
analysis on law reform in Indonesia. To subscribe,
please contact lrwd@pshk.or.id.
The riots at Tanjung Gusta Penitentiary on 11 July 2013 led to the insistence from several members of Commission III of the House of Representatives towards the Government to revise Government Regulation No. 99 Year 2012 on the Second Amendment towards Government Regulation No. 32 Year 1999 on Terms and Procedures for Implementation of Rights of Inmates. They argue that the number of occupancy has gone far beyond capacity. There needs to be a way to decrease the number of occupants, which would be by easing the requirements for remission towards those convicted of corruption, terrorism and drugs. This step taken by the members of Commission III of the House of Representatives has gotten a lot of opposition. Some parties suspect that this is in efforts to help those convicted of corruption, which are currently finding it hard to get remission after the Government Regulation No. 99 in 2012.
Not more than one week after the incident, at last the Minister of Justice and Human Rights determined his views regarding the existing pros and contras. The Minister did not revise Government Regulation No. 99 Year 2012, but instead issued Circular No.
M.HH-04.PK.01.05.06 on Implementation Guidelines for Government Regulation No. 99 Year 2012. In the Circular, the Minister stated that Government Regulation No. 99 Year 2012 is enforced towards inmates who had initial conviction binding after 12 November 2012. When the substance is viewed, this regulation actually does not need any more guidelines. The terms of length of punishment of an inmate in order to file for remission is stipulated in Article 34 paragraph (2) of the regulation, which is after undergoing six months of the sentence. So, there is no need for more regulations.
The Decree from the Minister of Justice and Human Rights by issuing implementation guidelines is unfortunate, since the position of Government Regulation No. 99 Year 2012 is already true and strong in terms of authority and the sort order of the legislation.
The regulation was formed as implementing regulations of Law No.
5 Year 1995 on Corrections. Article 14 paragraph (2) clearly states that provisions regarding the requirements and procedures for the implementation of the rights of inmates shall be further regulated in the Government Regulation. The period validity of the regulation has also been provided in Article II, which states that this regulation (Government Regulation No. 99 Year 2012) came into force on the date of its promulgation. Provision means that this regulation has been enacted towards all remission petitions filed after 12 November 2012, without exception.
Legal Policy
The Points of Compromise on Remission Arrangements
If we view the initial purpose of the existing polemic, it is actually to overcome the problem of overcapacity in correctional institutions. There is another solution to this problem. One of the efforts that can be done by the House of Representatives is in the field if legislation, namely by limiting regulations of imprisonment as well as starting to adapt other forms of punishment such as social work laws. As long as the law continues to easily manage the sentencing of imprisonment, correctional facilities will remain in overcapacity. (FN)
Photo: news.okezone.com
Court
Keep Your Integrity High, Advocate!
In the trial against the accused Inspector General (Pol) Djoko Susilo on Tuesday, July 16 2013, task force coordinator of the Eradication of Corruption Commission (KPK) for the driving license simulator case, Novel Baswedan, testified that there are a few lawyers of the accused who are affecting witnesses. This testimony was said in order to refute allegations that KPK investigators pressured a witness who was Djoko Susilo’s personal secretary, Benita Pratiwi. Beforehand, several witnesses also withdrew their information already given in the investigation process. In regards to this situation, the chairman of KPK, Bambang Widjojanto, stated that there are two lawyers who had met and influenced the witnesses. Same as Novel’s testimony, he said that KPK has evidence such as CCTV recordings of when the lawyers met with the witnesses at Peninsula Tower. Djoko Susilo’s lawyer, Juniver Girsang, did not deny the meeting, but according to him the meeting was held to inquire about procedures and who shipped the goods.
From this, we are able to raise two aspects, namely the ethical aspect and the criminal aspect. As a noble profession (noble officium), advocates should guard their integrity and professionalism instead of using all
means to win a case. In the Indonesian Advocate’s Code of Conduct, it is stated that an advocate in performing his duties does not aim solely to obtain material reward but to prioritize the law, truth and justice enforcement.
On a deeper scale, the regulation concerning manners of action when handling a case in that code of conduct notes that advocates are not allowed to teach or influence witnesses proposed by prosecutors. It is now clear that the action of Djoko Susilo’s lawyer is a violation of the code of ethics. Previously, these lawyers were also advocates of the police institution (corps of Djoko Susilo). Therefore, these actions shall be submitted to ethics committee to be immediately examined and given sanction, even though we knew so far that the enforcement of the code of conduct by advocate organizations are not optimal. From the criminal aspect, the deed done by Djoko Susilo’s lawyer can be qualified as an obstruction of justice, as regulated in article 21 on the Anti-Corruption Law. The public’s assumption that advocacy is a mafia-like profession and an intermediary of crime should be proven wrong by protecting the integrity of this profession. Who’s responsible in taking care of this? None other than advocates themselves. (MSG)
Frontliner Officials as Key to Good Public Service in Court
One of the keys to the success of public service can be seen in the role of frontliner officials!as the forefront in giving information and direction on court procedures. The failure of frontliner officials in giving precise information can result in inefficiency of services from court officials’ perspectives as well reducing the public customer’s satisfaction. The frontliner officials should not only be perceived in the form of specific information officials, but in a more broad scope that also includes any people constantly present in public spaces such as, receptionists, cleaning service officials, parking officers and the information personnel themselves.
Each frontliner official!needs to be given adequate understanding on court business processes that occur in the court. Of course, the level of understanding between one official and the other, for example between the cleaning service official and information personnel, needs to be differentiated. However, there is the need to set a minimal understanding on court business processes towards each frontliner official.
The fact in practice shows that the!effectiveness!of frontliner officials, ranging from security officers, receptionists, cleaning service officials and parking personnel, is highly effective in giving basic information such as procedures, type of services, and/or who to see when dealing with the court. For instance, in the Religious Court of Banjarmasin, even with the absence of an information desk, the function of the receptionist and frontliner officials are more than adequate in providing basic information, or at least guide you to the authorities if you need to conduct an affair in court. This situation has been consistently found in other courts. Empowering the frontliner officials can also be a solution for courts with low service intensity, so the inefficiency of having to provide information desks and officials can be avoided.
However, this does not make irrelevant the need for officials who are able to provide complex information. (GAT) !
Photo: sxc.hu
