Elsam Press Release
Legalization of Bill of Social Conflict Management: Transactional Politics Troubling Law Institution
Despite the fact that there are some challenges from many parties in society, civil society in particular, the House of Representative along with the government still insists to legislate Act of Social Conflict Management. The parliament stance shows how bad is the accommodation of people aspiration by the institution. It obviously prioritizes transactional politics in its establishment and sacrifices the formula quality of its regulation substance. It will certainly lengthen the list of parliament products ending at Constitutional Court. The thing that should not have been a necessity, had the government applied principals of good rule of act establishment including taking into account people aspiration which are the subjects of the regulations.
The legislation of Bill on Social Conflict Management/RUU PKS will certainly trouble the existing legal institutions and widen risks of people as the victims of human rights violation. In Elsam observation, the contagious conflicts recently are the effects of law process stagnancy, or if the bill is applied, it will not give justice, benefit, and law certainty. The addition of regulations supposed to solve the conflicts is concerned to be the triggers of new conflict emergence as a result of incoherence of regulations and their implementation.
In addition, looking at the materials of UU PKS, which is constitutionally troublesome in its materials, is not in line with a number of the other regulations. At least there are three main problems in formulation of UU PKS norm feared to be the triggers of new conflicts in its implication one day.
First, this act has decentralized some security matters absolutely belonging to central government accountability to regional government. It is obviously contradictive against Chapter 10 article (3) Act No. 32 Year 2004 prior to Regional Governance. Security Authority Decentralization to the regional government has potential to generate the new conflict emergence as it gives access to the regional government to have initiatives in form of security approach to solve the conflicts. Whereas from many cases happening lately, the emergence of conflicts is caused by the local government regulations. With this method, the central government also tends to burry its head in the sand toward the conflict management, and hand it over completely to the regional government by giving it authority including state oppressive force mobilization.
Second, even though one of the reasons for the formation of this act is to clarify the law enforcement process, which is not effective enough in solving conflicts, this act controversially nullifies chances to promote law enforcement in conflict management. Furthermore, this act has closed citizen access, the victims of conflicts in particular toward rights for fair legal assurance as emphasized in Chapter 28D article (1) UUD 1945. The bias status of law application in conflict situation has emerged law uncertainty. There is a question, is normal civil order status still applied in conflict situations or is it civil emergency status applied? Here is seen disharmony between UU PKS and Act No. 23 Year 1959 prior to Emergency Situations.
Third, This act has given opportunity to military in order to enter civil area, with the pretext of conflict management wrapped with military operation instead of war. Even though in mobilizing the National Indonesian Army and the military support the regional government must have the approval from the central government, it is still considered that the military mobilization in conflict management give opportunity to military to get back to the civil interests including politics. This regulation is totally out of spirit of early TNI reformation desiring to become military professional military force which is free from all the politics interests. The issuance of this regulation has also betrayed reformation struggle wanting strong civil supremacy in state administration. It is clear that the bill is not in line with spirit and mandate of Act No. 34 Year 2004 prior to Indonesian National Army.
The elasticity of regulation regarding conflict definition and sources of conflicts also open opportunity for power misappropriation threatening the protection of human rights and civil freedom. The elastic and easy to manipulate regulation is the denial of legal state principals which is emphasized in Chapter 1 article (3) UUD 1945. Legal State wants every legal regulation to be clear (there is a little opportunity to be misused), easy to understand, and support the justice enforcement. Law assurance is its nature which contains legality, predictability, and transparency.
Jakarta, 11 April 2012
Indriaswati D. Saptaningrum, S.H., LL.M
Elsam Executive Director
Contact Person:
Indriaswati D. Saptaningrum: 081380305728 (Direktur Elsam)
-
Related Articles:
- Rancangan Undang-Undang Penanganan Konflik Sosial, Hasil Rapat Panja DPR Selasa 27 Maret 2012 09 Apr 2012
|