There is no need to rush to pass the Criminal Code Bill into the law. There should be a public debate so that the public is still considered the owner of the republic.
By
KOMPAS EDITOR
·3 minutes read
The Criminal Code Bill is just one step away from being passed into law. However, it is still necessary to listen to the opinion of the people.
As reported by Kompas, on 27 May, 2022, the House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III, which oversees legal affairs, human rights and security, agreed with the explanation of the government regarding 14 crucial issues that had drawn public criticism. With this, the DPR Commission III has agreed to continue the deliberation process to pass the bill into law.
The Criminal Code Bill has become controversial. During the DPR’s 2014-2019 term, the deliberation of the bill received widespread protests from various groups in the country against a number of items in the bill. The DPR and the government then agreed to delegate the deliberation process to the DPR members elected for the 2019-2024 period. However, the government was asked to first explain to the public regarding the controversial issues in the bill.
The DPR's plan to immediately pass the Criminal Code Bill has obviously raised a question from the public. Have the current DPR members read and discussed the entire draft? Has the government explained to the public regarding the substance of the Criminal Code Bill? The law does not only bind members of the DPR and the government, but also the people.
It is natural if the public questions whether the carryover (delegation) of the bill to the current House members is only intended to continue the deliberation process without involving the public in resolving the substance in question. The Constitutional Court (MK) has given directions on meaningful public participation. Has it been implemented by the DPR and the government?
Meaningful participation is defined by the Constitutional Court as the right of the public to have their opinions heard; the right of the public to have their opinion considered; the right of public to get an explanation or answer to the opinion they raise. If this nation still claims to be a state of law -- not a state of power -- the Constitutional Court's considerations deserve to be followed. If the government and the DPR feel so dominant, they may ignore the people but it will be against the wishes of the people who give them their sovereignty.
Even though the government and the DPR are dominant, the public objections should be heard. Should such a carryover mechanism be carried out even without a prior discussion?
There should be a public debate so that the public is still considered the owner of the republic.
The civil society has become so weak. Campuses are being held hostage by the bureaucracy itself, advocate organizations are divided, NGO activists are also divided. Apparently, under such conditions, the government feels that it is no longer necessary to listen to their opinions.
Listening to the public’s wishes is not merely procedural, but substantial. Otherwise, the weakness of the legal ecosystem is used as an opportunity to pass the bill into the law.
There is no need to rush to pass the Criminal Code Bill into the law. The government and the DPR should first explain the controversial articles to the public such as those related to insulting the President; banning live broadcasting of trials, abortion and rape; and eradicating corruption. There should be a public debate so that the public is still considered the owner of the republic.
This article was translated by Hendarsyah Tarmizi.