Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Final Offer from Senayan

Deliberations on the Military Justice Bill have encountered a dead end. The government doesn't want TNI officers to be tried in civil courts.

WITHIN a short time, the 10 members of the Special Committee for the Draft Law on Military Justice plan to meet with the government. One of the agenda that has been prepared is the proposal to establish a transition period before military officers are tried in civil courts for crimes committed outside the line of duty. "We want to see what the government's response will be," said Special Committee Chairman, Andreas Pareira, who is also the head of the lobby team.

The lobbying team was formed on Wednesday last week after deliberations on the Draft Law on Revisions to the Law on Military Justice were deadlocked. The deadlock occurred in mid-February after the committee and government representatives failed to reach an agreement over two issues. First, Article 9 on the jurisdiction of military courts and second, Articles 198-203 on contextual jurisdiction.

From the start, the committee and the government were aware that deliberations over the two issues would be difficult. Because of this, during a meeting at the beginning of February the two sides agreed to go straight to the critical articles. "The hope was that if these issues were settled, the other 300 or so remaining articles would follow soon after," said a committee member.

The government proposed that the substance of Article 9 remain the same as Law No. 31/1997 (the Law on Military Justice), which says that all crimes committed by military officers would be tried in a military court. It turned out that the government also wanted to keep the contextual articles on the investigation process and hearing of cases that involve military and civil law enforcement officers.

At a meeting in early February, all the factions in the House of Representatives (DPR) rejected the government's proposal. In the meeting that followed, it was the government's turn to reject the DPR members' proposal. The deliberations came to a dead end. "[After] only two meetings, it was stuck," said Usamah Alhadar, a committee member from the United Development Party (PPP) faction.

Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono-the government representative at the meetings-declared that the government would start lobbying to resolve the problem. "We will lobby the DPR leaders," said Juwono. But DPR member Andi Matalatta immediately responded by saying that the government could not do this. "This is the Special Committee's authority," he said.

In the midst of this deadlock, in mid-February Andreas requested further input from the factions. The result was that on Article 9 there were no changes in the factions' position, meaning they were sticking with the DPR's initial proposal. With regard to Articles 198-203, only the Democrat Party (PD) faction accepted the government's proposal. But even that was with a number of provisos.

According to PD committee member F.X. Suwarno, the contextual stipulations still need to be applied on crimes by members of the military and civilians. On the question of the judges however, Suwarno said the Supreme Court had the right to determine this. "If this is not fulfilled, we too will disagree with the government's proposal," he said.

Committee member Nursjahbani Katjasungkana says that in the three weeks since the last meeting with the government, there has been no sign that the government is lobbying the DPR. Speaking with Tempo, the Director-General of Legislation at the Justice & Human Rights Department, Oka Mahendra, conceded that the government is waiting for the right time. "Lobbying also depends on both sides," he said.

The government has reasons why TNI (Indonesian Military) members should not be tried in civil courts. According to Juwono, there are psychological constraints when civilians deal with military officers. Moreover, police and prosecutors are not regarded as being ready yet to take on cases of civil crimes committed by TNI officers. The DPR however does not accept these arguments. "It is because of this, [that they] must be made ready [to handle it]," said Andi.

Andreas also rejects the government's assessment that police and prosecutors are unprepared to handle such cases. "At a meeting to hear opinions, police and prosecutors admitted to being ready if regulated by law," said Andreas. Nevertheless said Andreas, the police and prosecutors conceded to the possibility that there would be some minor "shocks" during its initial implementation.

According to Nursjahbani, the revisions to the Law on Military Justice represent the fulfillment of a commitment to defense reform and creating a professional TNI. This commitment flows out of two People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) decrees ratified in 2000, the MPR decree on the separation of the TNI and National Police and the MPR decree on the roles of the TNI and National Police.

Not only that, according to Nursjahbani the jurisdiction of military courts is already referred to in Article 65 of the Law on the TNI. It states there that, "soldiers shall submit to the authority of military courts in the case of criminal military legal violations and submit to the authority of civil courts in the case of civil criminal legal violations as regulated by law."

Nursjahbani says that the revisions to the Law on Military Justice represent a package of reforms and the professionalization of the TNI. "After getting out of politics, getting out of business, now it's the turn of the TNI to be asked to surrender the jurisdiction of its courts to civilians in the case of civil crimes," he said. So, says Nursjahbani, the Law on Military Justice represents the final "pillar" in the process of military reform.

For Andreas, the question of the military courts' jurisdiction is non-negotiable. If there is to be negotiation he says it should only be over the length of the period of transition. "The Special Committee can afford to tolerate a maximum transition [period] of three years," said Andreas.

The head of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, Munarman, hopes that the Special Committee-which was formed in June 2004-will not compromise on these two crucial issues. Munarman says that there are many who regard the military courts simply as institutions granting amnesty to members of the security forces when they commit crimes. "There have been a number of corruption cases involving the military, but it's as if [they are] untouchable by the law," he said.

Oka said that in the deliberations over the two issues the government and the DPR have already presented all their arguments. "The government is clear in its position, the DPR likewise, so it is not that there isn't a solution."

Oka revealed that there is an opening that could represent a compromise out of the crisis. The DPR's proposal only says that military officers who commit crimes outside of the line of duty should be tried in civil courts. According to Oka, the proposal does not say who should investigate the case and present the charges in the civil courts. "So, there is a chance [for solution]," he said. --

Abdul Manan, Badriah, Ami Afriatni

DPR versus the government

Crucial articles in the debate between the DPR and the government:

Law 34/1997 on Military Justice
Article 9: Courts in the domain of the military jurisdiction have the authority to:

1. Try crimes committed by a person that at the time of committing the crime was:
a. a soldier;
b. based on law equivalent to a soldier; c. a member of a category or office or body that is equivalent to or regarded as a soldier based on law; d. a person not included in the category in paragraph a, b, and c but on the decision of the commander in chief and with the agreement of the Minister of Justice should be tried by a court within the domain of the military judicature.

Articles 198-203: Contextual examination procedures
Changes proposed by the DPR:
Article 9
Courts in the domain of the military jurisdiction have the authority to: 1. Try military crimes that are committed by a person that at the time of committing the crime were: (from here on the same as Article 9 Law No. 34/1997-Ed.)

The Govt Position:
Courts in the domain of the military jurisdiction have the authority to: 1. Try crimes committed by a person that at that time of committing the crime were: (from here on the same as Article 9 Law No. 34/1997-Ed.)

DPR position on Article 198-203:

Govt position on Article 198-203:
Articles 198-2003: in principle, not significantly different from Law No. 34/1997 except for a change in the phrase "with the agreement of the Minister of Justice" to read "The head of the Supreme Court". Stipulations on contextual judges would also be determined by the Supreme Court.

NOTES: The government proposal deletes the word "military" before the phrase "crime". With this stipulation, all crimes committed by the military can be tried in a military court.

Support for the government's proposal

On Article 9:
All of the factions rejected it (the Golkar Party faction, Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, United Development Party, Democrat Party, National Mandate Party, National Awakening Party, Justice & Prosperity Party, Democratic Pioneer Star Party and the Peace & Prosperity Party).

On Articles 198-203:
Only the Democrat Party accepted it although with preconditions.

Tempo Magazine No. 30/VI March 28 - April 03, 2006

Tawaran Terakhir dari Senayan

Pembahasan Rancangan Undang-Undang Peradilan Militer menemui jalan buntu. Pemerintah tak ingin aparat TNI diadili di pengadilan umum.

Terdiri dari 10 anggota Panitia Khusus (Pansus) Rancangan Undang-Undang Peradilan Militer, tim ini dalam waktu dekat berencana menggelar pertemuan dengan pemerintah. Salah satu agenda yang disiapkan, mereka akan menawarkan adanya masa transisi sebelum anggota militer diadili di pengadilan umum jika melakukan tindakan pidana di luar pidana militer. “Kami mau melihat apa tanggapan pemerintah,” kata Ketua Pansus Andreas Pareira yang sekaligus ketua tim lobi.

Tim lobi itu dibentuk pada Rabu pekan lalu setelah pembahasan RUU tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Peradilan Militer tak bisa diteruskan. Kemacetan ini terjadi setelah pada pertengahan Februari lalu tak tercapai kata sepakat antara Pansus dan wakil pemerintah dalam dua hal. Pertama, Pasal 9 tentang yurisdiksi peradilan militer. Kedua, Pasal 198 sampai 203 tentang pengadilan koneksitas.

Dari semula, Pansus dan pemerintah sudah menyadari pembahasan kedua masalah ini bakal berjalan alot. Karena itu, pada rapat awal Februari lalu, keduanya sepakat langsung masuk ke pasal-pasal gawat itu. “Harapannya, jika masalah ini beres, sekitar 300 pasal lainnya tinggal mengekor,” ujar seorang anggota Pansus.

Pemerintah mengusulkan substansi Pasal 9 tetap sama seperti UU No. 31 Tahun 1997 (UU Peradilan Militer), yakni semua tindak pidana yang dilakukan anggota militer ya diadili di pengadilan militer. Adapun pasal-pasal tentang koneksitas (proses pengusutan dan persidangan kasus yang melibatkan aparat penegak hukum dari kalangan militer dan sipil) pemerintah tetap ingin mempertahankannya.

Pada rapat awal Februari, semua fraksi menolak usulan pemerintah. Rapat berikutnya, giliran pemerintah yang bersikap sama: menolak usulan anggota DPR. Pembahasan pun buntu. “Baru dua kali pertemuan langsung mentok,” kata Usamah Alhadar, anggota Pansus dari Fraksi Partai Persatuan Pembangunan.

Menteri Pertahanan Juwono Sudarsono, wakil pemerintah dalam rapat itu, menyatakan pihaknya akan menggunakan jalur lobi untuk menyelesaikan soal ini. “Kami akan melobi pimpinan DPR,” kata Juwono. Tapi, anggota DPR Andi Matalatta langsung menyebut cara seperti itu tidak bisa dilakukan. “Ini wewenang Pansus,” katanya.

Di tengah-tengah kemacetan pembahasan rancangan tersebut, pada pertengahan Februari lalu Andreas Pareira meminta masukan kembali dari fraksi-fraksi. Hasilnya, untuk Pasal 9, sikap semua fraksi tak berubah, artinya tetap pada usulan DPR semula. Adapun untuk Pasal 198–203, hanya Fraksi Partai Demokrat yang menerima usulan pemerintah. Itu pun dengan sejumlah catatan.

Menurut anggota Pansus dari Partai Demokrat, F.X. Suwarno, koneksitas tetap diperlukan jika tindak pidana melibatkan anggota militer dan sipil. Hanya, dalam soal hakimnya, kata Suwarno, yang berhak menentukan adalah Mahkamah Agung. "Kalau ini tak dipenuhi, kami juga tak setuju dengan usulan
pemerintah," katanya.

Nursjahbani Katjasungkana, anggota Pansus, menyatakan, hingga tiga pekan setelah pertemuan terakhir dengan pemerintah, tak ada tanda-tanda pemerintah melobi DPR. Kepada Tempo, Direktur Jenderal Perundang-undangan Departemen Hukum dan HAM, Oka Mahendra, mengakui pemerintah masih mencari waktu yang tepat untuk hal ini. “Lobi kan juga tergantung kedua belah pihak,” katanya.

Pemerintah punya alasan mengapa anggota TNI tak seharusnya diadili di pengadilan umum. Menurut Juwono, ada kendala psikologis jika militer ditangani sipil. Apalagi, polisi dan jaksa juga dinilai belum siap jika mendapat kasus-kasus pelanggaran pidana umum yang dilakukan aparat TNI. Tapi, alasan ini tak diterima DPR. “Karena itu, ya harus disiapkan,” ujar Andi Matalatta.

Andreas juga menampik penilaian pemerintah mengenai ketidaksiapan polisi dan jaksa dalam menangani kasus. “Dalam rapat dengar pendapat, polisi dan jaksa mengaku siap jika memang diperintahkan undang-undang,” kata Andreas. Meski demikian, kata Andreas, para jaksa dan polisi mengakui kemungkinan ada sedikit “guncangan” pada tahap awal pelaksanaannya kelak.

Menurut Nursjahbani, perubahan-perubahan atas UU Peradilan Militer itu merupakan pelaksanaan dari komitmen reformasi pertahanan dan TNI yang profesional. Komitmen itu tertuang dalam dua ketetapan MPR tahun 2000, yaitu Ketetapan MPR tentang Pemisahan TNI dan Polri serta Ketetapan MPR tentang Peran TNI dan Peran Polri.

Tak hanya itu. Menurut anggota DPR ini, yurisdiksi peradilan militer ini sudah disebutkan pada Pasal 65 Undang-Undang tentang TNI. Di situ dikatakan, “Prajurit tunduk kepada kekuasaan peradilan militer dalam hal pelanggaran hukum pidana militer dan tunduk pada kekuasaan peradilan umum dalam hal pelanggaran hukum pidana umum yang diatur dengan undang-undang.”

Perubahan Undang-Undang Peradilan Militer, kata Nursjahbani, merupakan satu paket reformasi dan profesionalisme TNI. “Setelah keluar dari politik, keluar dari bisnis, sekarang giliran TNI diminta menyerahkan yurisdiksi pengadilannya pada sipil untuk tidak pidana umum,” katanya. Jadi, kata Nursjahbani, UU Peradilan Militer ini merupakan “pilar” terakhir yang direformasi.

Bagi Andreas, soal yurisdiksi pengadilan militer tak bisa ditawar-tawar. Kalaupun ada negosiasi, katanya, itu hanya soal lamanya masa transisi. “Pansus memberi toleransi transisi paling lama tiga tahun,” kata Andreas.

Ketua Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia, Munarman, berharap Pansus yang dibentuk sejak Juni 2005 itu tak melakukan kompromi dalam dua masalah yang krusial itu. Selama ini, kata Munarman, banyak yang menilai pengadilan militer menjadi lembaga pengampunan bagi anggota korps bersenjata jika melakukan kejahatan. “Ada beberapa kasus-kasus korupsi yang melibatkan militer seperti tak tersentuh hukum,” kata dia.

Oka Mahendra mengatakan, untuk pembahasan dua soal itu, pemerintah dan DPR sudah mengeluarkan semua argumentasinya. “Pemerintah jelas posisinya, DPR juga begitu, tapi bukan tak ada jalan keluar.”

Oka mengungkapkan adanya celah yang bisa dijadikan jalan tengah keluar dari kemelut ini. Dalam tawaran DPR, hanya disebut militer yang melakukan tindak pidana di luar kemiliteran diadili di pengadilan umum. Sementara, menurut dia, dalam tawaran tersebut tidak disebutkan siapa yang menyidik dan yang mengajukan tuntutan dalam peradilan umum itu. “Nah, di situ ada peluang,” katanya.***

Abdul Manan, Badriah, Ami Afriatni

Majalah Tempo, 27 Maret 2006

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Morality plays

AsiaViews, Edition: 11/III/March/2006

The Anti-Pornography and Pornographic Acts Bill is undergoing revision. The PDI-P has agreed to allow the discussions to continue, providing four terms are met.

THE procession of hundreds of professional traditional dancers was accompanied by the melodic sounds of traditional musical instruments like the gong and the Kendang drum. Many of the dancers were wearing the Kemben. This Javanese chest cloth exposes part of the upper torso when certain dance movements are performed.

The dancers, ranging in ages from 17 to 60, began their walk at the School for Traditional Arts in Solo and headed for the Surakarta Cultural Park, about 800 meters away. The dancers, crowding the streets of Solo last Wednesday, didn’t intend to follow the carnival. They gathered to mark their protest against the Anti-Pornography and Pornographic Acts Bill (RUU APP), which is currently being discussed in the House of Representatives (DPR). “If traditional dances like tayub are considered pornographic, I won’t be able to dance at the town hall ceremonies,” said Juwariah, a tayub dancer from Jeponan, Blora.

According to Mugiono Kasido, who organized the event “A thousand tayub dancers reject the bill.” If the bill is passed, traditional dances like tayub, ledek and lengger, which are still performed in Central Java, will be condemned because the choreography is categorized as sensual or inciting lust. “In fact the tayub is indeed an intimate dance,” said the Solonese choreographer.

As a result the tayub dancers and the rest of Solo’s artists are insisting that the deliberations on the bill be halted. The law will renew the censorship of art on the basis of morality,” said Murtidjono, director of the Surakarta Cultural Park.

The wave of opposition to the bill from various cultural and intellectual groups, has spread to cities like Jakarta, Bandung and Yogyakarta. Last Wednesday, the Bali Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) held a special session to reject the bill. “We ask that all efforts to outline this law be stopped,” said I.B.Putu Wenawa, head of the Bali DPRD.

In Jakarta, the Special Formulating Committee discussing the bill continued to receive community groups who are for and against this bill. Last Tuesday the committee gave an audience to 20 religious figures from South Sulawesi that wish to see the bill passed.

The following day was the turn of the Indonesian Mujahidin Council which also appeared with the same request. “Even though the committee has been hearing the views of the public since last February we cannot refuse the groups that continue to come before us now,” said Balkan Kapale, head of the Special Committee.

The Anti-Pornography Bill is entering the deliberation phase. The bill has stirred up a real fuss. The actual definition of pornography is ambiguous and haphazard and most of the articles in the bill pose potential restrictions on freedom of expression.

Article 58 for example, threatens a five-year jail sentence to anyone who writes, records, films, composes poetry or paints anything which expresses sensuality. “The definition of sensuality is not clear, if a nude painting is considered pornographic, this is very dangerous,” said Cak Kandar, a well-known artist from Surabaya.

Although it faces opposition from various sides, the deliberation of the bill comprising 11 chapters and 93 articles is still continuing. At the beginning of last March for example, a team from the Special Committee was sent to Batam, Papua and Bali to socialize the demand for the bill.

Demonstrators met the team sent to Bali, headed by Yoyoh Yusroh. Hundreds of citizens at the governor’s office demanded that the team get out of Bali. “I wasn’t even given a chance to explain the bill. They asked us to leave,” said a member of the Justice & Prosperity Party.

According to Balkan, his faction has not turned a deaf ear to the voices of support and opposition to the bill. “Every faction then makes an inventory list of problems which will be examined by the Special Committee,” said the Democrat Party official.

The formulating team comprised of 15 members of the special committee has begun its work. Last Friday the team held meetings over a two-day period at Wisma Indag in Cisarua, Bogor, to talk about the draft of the bill. All the team members were present except for the PDI-P and PDS representatives. “We feel the talks at Cisarua don’t fully take into account the opinion of the public,” said Ni Gusti Ayu Sukmadewi Djakse from PDI-P.

The sessions at Cisarua haven’t yet touched on the revision of the articles even though there are many issues which all parties agree upon. For example will the name of the bill be changed to the Pornography Bill or the Anti-Pornography and Pornographic Acts Bill?

Other matters include the removal of the clause which appoints the Anti-Pornography and Pornographic Acts National Agency, as well as combining several of the chapters.

The team also agreed to drop articles in which the criminal sanctions are already included in the Criminal Code. “But certain criminal sanctions will remain since it would look strange to have a law without citing the consequences of criminal actions,” said Yoyoh Yusroh.

According to Tempo’s source, one of the hotly debated issues concerns the title of the bill and the considerations of the need for this law. “PKS sees the impact of globalization as one of the key considerations for the bill and firmly asks that the name of the bill include the word Pornoaksi,” said the source. This final demand will be met. “We won’t take issue with all the team’s decisions,” said Yoyoh.

The deliberations are not over. PDI-P says it won’t reject the bill as long as it doesn’t violate four points. These are: that the bill does not infringe on religious and cultural diversity, does not interfere in the private affairs of citizens, does not regulate the moral assumptions of a person and does not control general moral or ethical values on the basis of any specific religion. “We see eye to eye with the PDI-P on this matter, if these principles are ignored we reject the bill,” said Tiurlan B.Hutagaol, a member of the Special Committee for the bill.

The clash over the amendment of certain articles will begin in early may after a recess. According to one of the expert staff of the DPR, Ujianto Singgih, even if there is a faction that doesn’t agree the rejection of the bill must occur during the plenary session of the Special Committee and during a committee session of the DPR. “Because of this it’s possible that the bill is decided upon by casting a vote. If indeed more parliament members vote against the bill then the bill will be rejected and talks will start over,” said Tiurlan B.Hutagaol from PDS.

The casting of a vote seems to be the final path; all of the committee members hope the bumpy road will be smoother by finding a middle ground acceptable to all parties. “If we talk about it with a cool head all the different opinions will arrive at common ground, that’s why we ask that tensions calm down first,” said Abdul Hamid Wahid.

By L.R. Baskoro, Abdul Manan, Imron Rosyid (Solo)

Tempo, No. 29/VI/March 21-27, 2006

A more comprehensive code

AsiaViews, Edition: 11/III/March/2006

IT’S fantastic. That was the comment of senior journalist Atmakusumah Astraatmadja after scrutinizing the Journalistic Code of Ethics endorsed and signed by 29 organizations of journalists at Harris Hotel, Jakarta, on Tuesday last week. The new code was processed only in less than two months.

It’s indeed fantastic in comparison with the previous one, signed on April 6, 1999 in Bandung, which took seven months to complete. The express code-making brought relief to Press Council Chairman Ichlasul Amal.

As host, assisted by the Tifa Foundation, the Press Council was worried that its discussion would be tough, heated and even rowdy. “The committee had planned to alert the police for fear of any unruliness,” said Amal laughingly as he addressed the end of the deliberation.

In fact, the draft prepared by the Press Council’s working group had become a subject of passionate debate. One of the points of argument was the phrase “no ill intent” in Article 1: “Indonesian journalists shall have an independent attitude, produce accurate, balanced reports, and bear no ill intent.”

Such words were regarded as creating a disagreeable image of journalists. However, those proposing omission failed as the majority of participants maintained the phrase.

The change of name from the Indonesian Journalists Code of Ethics (KEWI) to the Journalistic Code of Ethics was not much questioned because the group referred to Law No. 40/1999, Article 7 (2): “Journalists shall possess and observe the Journalistic Code of Ethics.”

Apart from the Code, the meeting also endorsed documents of the Press Council Empowerment and Journalist Organizational Standards. The former contains formulations to enhance the council’s power and authority, and the latter constitutes standardization of journalist organizations. Based on Press Council data, there are 34 such associations today.

To Atmakusumah, there is more than just the quick drafting to praise. The former Press Council Chairman noted at least three new elements in the code’s 11 articles—from only seven previously.

First, there’s the provision that promotes journalists’ respect for pluralism. Article 8 emphasizes the need for journalists to avoid prejudice or discrimination against somebody on ethnic, racial, skin and religious grounds.

Second, journalists are called upon to “protect” perpetrators of crime who are under-age children. Their identities must not be clearly disclosed. The same treatment is prescribed for victims of crimes against decency.

Third, the opinion factor in news writing is involved. Article 3 stipulates, “Indonesian journalists shall always verify information, make balanced reports, avoid mixing fact and fault-finding opinion, and apply the presumption of innocence.” Opinion trying to find faults is prohibited. Opinion founded on the interpretation of fact is allowed.”

According to Secretary-General of the Indonesian Television Journalists Association, Bekti Nugroho, the code is also bolder. “An article provides that journalists shall be independent and free from any intervention of other parties, including media proprietors,” said Bekti.

Unlike KEWI, this new code also regulates the behavior of electronic media journalists. As Ichlasul Amal indicated, it was one reason that inspired the Press Council to immediately renew the Code of Ethics.

By Abdul Manan

Tempo, No. 29/VI/March 21+27, 2006

Monday, March 20, 2006

Tensi Tinggi di Antara Pasal Lonjong

Rancangan Undang-Undang Antipornografi dan Pornoaksi mulai direvisi. PDI Perjuangan setujupembahasan dilanjutkan asal memenuhi empat syarat.

Arak-arakan ratusan penari tayub berjalan gemulai diiringi bunyi-bunyian alat musik tradisional seperti kendang dan gong. Mengenakan kemben, busana Jawa yang memperlihatkan bagian atas tubuh sedikit terbuka, sesekali mereka melakukan gerakan tarian tayub.
Usia penari yang berdatangan dari Yogya, Cepu, Blora, Banyumas, Sragen, dan sekitar Solo itu beraneka ragam. Dari sekitar 17 hingga 60-an tahun. Mereka berjalan dari Sekolah Tinggi Seni Indonesia Solo ke Taman Budaya Surakarta, yang berjarak sekitar 800 meter.
Para penari tayub yang pada Rabu pekan lalu tumplek di jalanan Solo itu tak hendak mengikuti karnaval. Mereka berkumpul untuk berunjuk rasa memprotes Rancangan Undang-Undang Antipornografi dan Pornoaksi (RUU APP) yang sekarang gencar digodok di DPR. “Kalau tarian seperti tayub dianggap porno, saya tidak akan bisa lagi nayub di acara-acara di balai desa,” kata Juwariah, penari tayub dari Jeponan, Blora.
Menurut Mugiono Kasido, salah satu penggagas acara “Gelar 1000 Tayub Menolak RUU APP”, jika RUU itu disahkan, kesenian tradisional yang masih hidup subur di desa-desa Jawa Tengah seperti tayub, ledek, atau lengger, bisa digusur dengan alasan penampilan dan gerakan penarinya dikategorikan sensual alias mengundang berahi. “Padahal tayub itu kan memang tari pergaulan,” kata koreografer kondang Solo ini.
Karena itu, para penari tayub dan sejumlah seniman dan budayawan Solo mendesak pembahasan RUU itu dihentikan. “Pengesahan RUU APP menjadi undang-undang akan menghidupkan kembali tradisi pemberangusan karya seni atas nama moralitas,” kata Murtidjono, Kepala Taman Budaya Surakarta.
Gelombang penolakan terhadap pembahasan RUU Antipornografi dari berbagai kalangan–kelompok perempuan, budayawan, intelektual–juga merebak di sejumlah kota seperti Jakarta, Bandung, dan Yogyakarta. Bahkan Rabu pekan lalu itu, DPRD Bali lewat sidang paripurna menyatakan menolak RUU ini. ”Kita meminta penghentian segala upaya yang dilakukan untuk membentuk RUU APP itu,” kata Ketua DPRD Bali I.B. Putu Wesnawa.
Di Jakarta, panitia khusus yang membahas RUU ini juga tak henti-hentinya menerima kelompok masyarakat yang pro dan kontra terhadap RUU itu. Selasa pekan lalu, misalnya, panitia RUU Antipornografi ini menerima sekitar 20 orang ulama yang mewakili berbagai organisasi Islam se-Sulawesi Selatan, yang meminta RUU itu segera disahkan.
Esok harinya giliran Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia yang datang dengan permintaan yang sama. ”Walau rapat dengar pendapat dengan masyarakat sudah ditutup pada Februari lalu, kami tak mungkin menolak kelompok yang terus berdatangan itu,” ujar Balkan Kaplale, ketua panitia khusus RUU ini.
RUU Antipornografi kini memasuki tahap perumusan. Sebelumnya, sejak dibahas di DPR pada akhir tahun lalu, RUU yang isinya mengatur berbagai hal yang berkaitan dengan pornografi dan pornoaksi–di media massa, karya seni, hingga perilaku–juga sudah memancing kehebohan. Selain definisi pornografi dan pornoaksi yang dinilai ngawur dan multitafsir, sejumlah pasal pada RUU ini juga dianggap berpotensi memberangus kebebasan berekspresi.
Pasal 58 RUU itu, misalnya, berisi ancaman penjara lima tahun kepada siapa pun yang membuat tulisan, rekaman suara, film, puisi, atau lukisan yang mengekspresikan daya tarik tubuh tertentu yang sensual. “Definisi sensual ini kan tidak jelas. Kalau lukisan orang telanjang disebut pornografi, ini bahaya,” kata Cak Kandar, pelukis asal Surabaya yang terkenal dengan lukisan bulunya.
Kendati mendapat tentangan dari berbagai pihak, RUU yang terdiri dari 11 bab dan 93 pasal ini terus menggelinding. Pada awal Maret lalu, misalnya, tiga tim panitia khusus masing-masing dikirim ke Batam, Papua, dan Bali untuk menyosialkan perlunya RUU tersebut.
Berbeda dengan di dua daerah lainnya, di Bali tim yang dipimpin Yoyoh Yusroh disambut unjuk rasa. Ratusan masyarakat di kantor Gubernur Bali meminta tim itu “angkat kaki” dari Bali. “Saya tidak diberi kesempatan menjelaskan RUU ini. Mereka menyuruh kami pulang,” kata anggota Fraksi Partai Keadilan Sejahtera itu.
Menurut Balkan, pihaknya tidak menutup telinga terhadap suara pro dan kontra di masyarakat tentang RUU ini. “Karena itu tiap fraksi lantas membuat daftar inventarisasi masalah yang kemudian dibahas oleh tim perumus,” kata anggota Fraksi Partai Demokrat ini. Pengajuan daftar inventarisasi masalah itu diberi tenggat 24 Maret ini.
Tim perumus RUU yang terdiri dari sekitar 15 anggota panitia khusus itu sudah bekerja. Jumat dua pekan lalu, selama dua hari tim perumus mengadakan rapat di Wisma Indag, di kawasan Cisarua, Bogor, membahas perbaikan draf RUU. Semua anggota tim perumus hadir kecuali wakil Fraksi PDI Perjuangan dan Fraksi Partai Damai Sejahtera (PDS). “Kami menganggap pembahasan di Cisarua itu belum mengakomodasi pendapat masyarakat,” kata Ni Gusti Ayu Sukmadewi Djakse, anggota tim RUU Antipornografi dari Fraksi PDIP.
Rapat di Cisarua itu belum menyentuh revisi pasal-pasal RUU. Kendati demikian, ada sejumlah hal yang disepakati. Misalnya, judul RUU itu akan diubah menjadi RUU Pornografi atau RUU Pornografi dan Pornoaksi, dihapuskannya Badan Antipornografi dan Pornoaksi Nasional, serta digabungkannya sejumlah bab.
Tim perumus juga sepakat akan menghapus pasal-pasal tindak pidana susila jika pasal itu sudah diatur oleh Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP). “Tapi sanksi pidana yang belum diatur tetap ada, karena aneh kalau sebuah undang-undang tidak ada sanksinya,” kata Yoyoh Yusroh.
Menurut sumber Tempo, salah satu pembahasan yang paling panas di Cisarua menyangkut judul RUU dan alasan (pertimbangan) perlunya RUU itu. “PKS meminta dampak globalisasi sebagai salah satu pertimbangan perlunya RUU ini, dan berkukuh meminta judul RUU itu tetap ada kata pornoaksinya,” kata sumber itu. Tuntutan ini akhirnya terpenuhi. “Semua putusan tim perumus itu tidak bisa diganggu-gugat lagi,” kata Yoyoh.
Pembahasan memang belum selesai. PDIP sendiri menyatakan tak akan menolak RUU tersebut sepanjang tidak melanggar empat hal, yakni tidak menolak keragaman budaya dan agama, tidak mengatur wilayah privasi masyarakat, tidak mengatur dugaan moral seseorang, dan tidak mengatur moral atau etika umum berdasar pandangan agama tertentu. “Kami sepaham dengan PDIP dalam hal ini. Jika tidak, kami menolak RUU itu,” kata Tiurlan B. Hutagaol, anggota panitia khusus RUU Antipornografi dari Fraksi PDS.
“Pertempuran” pembahasan perubahan pasal per pasal RUU akan dimulai pada awal Mei mendatang, setelah selesai masa reses. Menurut staf ahli DPR Ujianto Singgih, jikapun ada fraksi yang tidak setuju dengan RUU itu, penolakan itu hanya bisa dilakukan dalam rapat pleno panitia khusus dan Sidang Paripurna DPR. ”Karena itu tidak mustahil disetujuinya RUU itu kelak lewat pemungutan suara (voting). “Jika ternyata lebih banyak anggota DPR yang menolak, RUU itu akan batal atau pembahasannya dari awal lagi,” kata staf ahli yang membidangi pengkajian pembahasan RUU itu.
Pemungutan suara merupakan jalan terakhir yang ditempuh. Sejumlah anggota panitia lebih mengharap “benjal-benjol” isi RUU itu bisa dimuluskan dengan mencari jalan tengah yang diterima semua fraksi. “Jika dibicarakan dengan kepala dingin, semua perbedaan itu akan mencapai titik temu. Karena itu kami meminta tensi pembahasan RUU ini diturunkan dulu,” kata Abdul Hamid Wahid, anggota panitia RUU Antipornografi dari Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa.
L.R. Baskoro, Abdul Manan, Imron Rosyid (Solo)
Majalah Tempo, 20 Maret 2006

Berjuang dengan Usulan

Beberapa fraksi akan mengajukan usulan perubahan isi draf Rancangan Undang-Undang Antipornografi. Inilah sejumlah usulan terbaru dari beberapa fraksi itu.
Perjalanan Rancangan Undang-Undang Antipornografi kini segera memasuki tahap baru: membongkar dan memperbaiki isi pasal sesuai dengan masukan yang didapat dari masyarakat. Setelah dua pekan lalu panitia perumus menyepakati sistematika RUU itu, yang antara lain membuang beberapa bab, sehingga RUU ini meramping jadi delapan dari 11 bab, maka tahap selanjutnya memperdebatkan pasal-pasal dalam bab itu. Usulan perubahan, atau juga penghapusan pasal-pasal, itu diajukan lewat daftar inventaris masalah (DIM) yang kemudian digodok tim perumus.
Dalam DIM yang didapat Tempo, setidaknya empat fraksi sudah menyampaikan usulan perubahannya. Keempatnya memiliki perbedaan cukup mencolok satu sama lain. Selain nama rancangan undang-undangnya, pengertian pornografi, serta sanksi pidana dan denda bagi para pelanggarnya juga diminta diubah.
Soal nama, misalnya, empat fraksi mengajukan usulan berbeda. Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) mengajukan nama RUU Antipornografi dan Tindak Kecabulan. Sedangkan Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP) memilih tetap pada nama semula, namun dengan catatan, “Judul dapat saja berubah atau disesuaikan, namun tanpa menghilangkan substansi materi rancangan undang-undang.”
Adapun Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) mengusulkan nama RUU itu menjadi RUU Pornografi. Kata “pornoaksi” dihilangkan. Menurut anggota Pansus dari PKB, Abdul Hamid Wahid, berdasarkan masukan yang diterima fraksinya, pengertian pornoaksi tak ditemukan dalam literatur mana pun. Selain itu, kata Abdul Hamid, jika masalah ini diatur, negara akan terlalu masuk ke wilayah privat warga negara, yang menjadi wilayah agama atau moral. “Jadi, akhirnya kami mencari jalan kompromi. Pornografi saja yang diatur,” kata Abdul Hamid.
Fraksi PDIP, Fraksi yang paling tajam mengkritik rancangan ini, bahkan mengubah sama sekali judul RUU itu. PDIP mengusulkan namanya RUU Pengaturan Penyebaran Barang Pornografi. “Dengan rancangan semacam ini yang diatur adalah bisnis industri tentang pornografi,” kata anggota Pansus dari PDIP, Ni Gusti Ayu Sukmadewi Djakse.
Itu baru soal nama. Soal isi juga tak kalah semarak dalam upaya menawarkan perubahan. Soal pornografi, misalnya, PKS memberikan usulan tambahan berupa pembagian pornografi berdasarkan kadarnya: sangat berat, berat, dan ringan. Menurut Jamaluddin, anggota Dewan dari PKS, pembagian ini merujuk kepada hukum Islam. “Kan ada dosa besar, ada dosa kecil. Jadi, ada tingkatannya,” kata dia.
Mengenai bab berisi pembentukan lembaga Badan Antipornografi dan Pornoaksi Nasional (BAPPN), PKS, PKB, dan PDIP setuju untuk menghapus bab dan lembaga itu. Hanya PPP yang tetap mempertahankannya. Dalam DIM PKS disebutkan, lembaga ini tak perlu dibentuk karena akan tumpang tindih dengan kepolisian, kejaksaaan, dan kehakiman. PKB menyatakan, yang bisa dilakukan semua pihak harus mengefektifkan kontrol masyarakat serta lembaga yang sudah ada, seperti Badan Sensor Film, Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia, dan Dewan Pers.
Masalah lain yang menjadi sorotan adalah soal sanksi pidana. Dalam DIM PPP, sanksi pidana yang diajukan partai ini tak berubah. Artinya sesuai dengan draf awal rancangan, yaitu pidana penjara paling singkat satu tahun dan maksimal tujuh tahun penjara. Demikian pula dengan dendanya, terendah Rp 100 juta dan tertinggi Rp 750 juta.
PKS mengusulkan perubahan. Sanksi pidana dalam RUU ini PKS meminta minimal 9 bulan penjara dan maksimal 20 tahun penjara. PKS menuntut dalam soal sanksi ini juga harus diperhatikan dengan sanksi-sanksi dalam Undang-Undang Perfilman, Undang-Undang Penyiaran, Undang-Undang Pers, Undang-Undang Hak Cipta, Undang-Undang Perlindungan Anak, dan Undang-Undang Penghapusan Kekerasan dalam Rumah Tangga.
Adapun PKB meminta sanksi itu merujuk kepada KUHP. Tapi, khusus dalam RUU itu, partai ini meminta sanksi itu diperberat. Hukuman maksimal menjadi 12 tahun penjara dan denda mencapai Rp 2 miliar. PKB juga berpendapat, ketentuan tentang sanksi di KUHP merupakan bagian dari RUU Antipornografi.
Menurut Abdul Hamid Wahid, pihaknya berpendapat jika sanksi-sanksi itu sudah diatur pada undang-undang lain, maka sanksi itu tak perlu ada di dalam RUU Antipornografi. “Hanya, setelah kami kaji, ternyata banyak juga hal yang belum diatur,” katanya. PDI Perjuangan perihal tumpang tindih sanksi sependapat dengan PKB. “Kalau hal itu sudah diatur dalam KUHP, cukup di sana saja,” kata Sukmadewi.
DIM itu kini memang baru beredar sebatas anggota fraksi. Sejumlah lobi terus dilakukan antaranggota pansus, terutama PKS dan PPP serta PDIP dan PDS, untuk mendapatkan kesepakatan saling mendukung dalam “pertempuran” di rapat-rapat tim perumus selanjutnya.
Abdul Manan
Majalah Tempo, 20 Maret 2006

Lebih Cepat Lebih Lengkap

Kode Etik Jurnalistik menggantikan Kode Etik Wartawan Indonesia. Juga mengatur perilaku wartawan elektronik.

FANTASTIS. Itulah komentar wartawan senior Atmakusumah Astraatmadja setelah melihat Kode Etik Jurnalistik disahkan dan ditandatangani wakil 29 organisasi wartawan, di Hotel Harris, Jakarta, Selasa pekan lalu. Kode etik baru ini digodok hanya dalam waktu kurang dari dua bulan.
Memang fantastis jika diingat kode etik sebelumnya, yang ditandatangani pada 6 April 1999 di Bandung, membutuhkan waktu tujuh bulan. Proses “kilat” itu pula yang membuat lega Ketua Dewan Pers, Ichlasul Amal.
Sebagai tuan rumah, dibantu Yayasan Tifa, Dewan Pers sempat khawatir pembahasan berlangsung alot, panas, bahkan mungkin ricuh. “Panitia sempat berencana menyiapkan polisi karena khawatir kisruh,” kata Amal, sembari tertawa, saat memberikan sambutan penutupan.
Memang, draf yang disiapkan kelompok kerja, yang dibentuk Dewan Pers, sempat menjadi bahan perdebatan hangat. Salah satunya soal kata “tidak beritikad buruk” dalam pasal 1: “Wartawan Indonesia bersikap independen, menghasilkan berita yang akurat, berimbang, dan tidak beritikad buruk.” Ungkapan itu dianggap memberi citra tak elok bagi wartawan. Namun, usulan untuk menggusurnya kandas karena mayoritas peserta mempertahankannya.
Adapun perubahan nama, dari Kode Etik Wartawan Indonesia (KEWI) menjadi Kode Etik Jurnalistik, tak banyak dipersoalkan. Sebab, kelompok kerja merujuk pada Undang-Undang No. 40/1999, Pasal 7 (2): “Wartawan memiliki dan menaati Kode Etik Jurnalistik.” Selain Kode Etik Jurnalistik, yang juga disahkan dalam acara itu adalah naskah Penguatan Dewan Pers dan Standar Organisasi Wartawan. Yang pertama berisi rumusan untuk membuat Dewan Pers lebih bergigi dan berwibawa, yang kedua merupakan rumusan standardisasi organisasi wartawan.
Berdasarkan data Dewan Pers, kini terdapat 34 organisasi wartawan.Bagi Atmakusumah, bukan cuma kecepatan waktu yang patut diacungi jempol. Mantan Ketua Dewan Pers ini mencatat, setidaknya ada tiga hal baru dalam 11 pasal–dari sebelumnya 7 pasal–kode etik ini.
Pertama, adanya pasal yang mendorong wartawan menghormati keragaman. Pasal 8 mewanti-wanti wartawan untuk menjauhi prasangka atau diskriminasi terhadap seseorang atas dasar perbedaan suku, ras, warna kulit, dan agama.
Kedua, wartawan diminta memberikan “perlindungan” kepada pelaku kejahatan yang masih tergolong anak-anak. Identitasnya tak boleh disebutkan secara jelas. Perlakuan serupa harus diberikan kepada korban kejahatan susila.
Ketiga, soal opini dalam penulisan berita. Pasal 3 Kode Etik menyatakan, “Wartawan Indonesia selalu menguji informasi, memberitakan secara berimbang, tidak mencampurkan fakta dan opini yang menghakimi, serta menerapkan asas praduga tak bersalah.” Yang dilarang adalah opini menghakimi. Opini berdasarkan penafsiran atas fakta tetap diperbolehkan.
Menurut Sekretaris Jenderal Ikatan Jurnalis Televisi Indonesia, Bekti Nugroho, kode etik ini juga lebih berani. “Dalam salah satu pasal disebutkan, wartawan harus independen dan bebas dari campur tangan pihak lain, termasuk dari pemilik media,” kata Bekti, yang ikut menandatangani kode etik ini.
Beda dengan KEWI, kode etik ini juga mengatur perilaku wartawan elektronik. Menurut Ichlasul Amal, alasan ini pula yang menjadi inspirasi bagi Dewan Pers untuk segera memperbarui kode etik.
Abdul Manan
Majalah Tempo, 20 Maret 2006

Monday, March 06, 2006

Acquittals Unlimited?

Former boss of Bank Mandiri, E.C.W. Neloe has been exonerated from corruption charges.

EDUARD Cornelis William Neloe could not hide his joy upon hearing the verdict handed down by the South Jakarta District Court over his case, last Monday. Following trial, Neloe was swamped by dozens of journalists. He was also greeted by family members and colleagues, shaking his hand and congratulating him on the favorable verdict. "I have been seeking justice for a long time and today I have received it, although it is not over yet," Neloe told journalists.

Chaired by judge Gatot Suharnoto, the judicial panel presiding over Neloe's case exonerated Neloe and two other Bank Mandiri directors, I Wayan Pugeg and M. Sholeh Tasripan from corruption charges made against them for their involvement in the Bank Mandiri credit loan scandal.

The court verdict has sparked controversy. The prosecution indicted Neloe, Pugeg and Tasripan on corruption charges for approving a Rp160 billion bridging loan and US$18.5 million in investment credit to PT Cipta Graha Nusantara (CGN). The prosecution charged the three defendants with violating the Anti-Corruption Law.

During his reading, judge Gatot outlined the three offences included in the prosecutor's indictment: committing an illegal act; attempting to profit oneself, another person or a corporation; and causing loss to the state. According to Gatot, the first charge had been met because the credit approval had deviated from the standard operation procedure (SOP). "Bank Mandiri Crediting Policy stipulates that the loan should be binding," explained Gatot. However, this condition was not enforced. According to Gatot, the second charge had also been met because the credit loan profited CGN, enabling it to purchase the credit assets of PT Tahta Medan.

However, the court ruled that the third charge of causing loss to the state had not been met. "Based on the testimony given by expert witnesses, there was no loss caused to the state," Gatot declared. The court applied the Laws on the State Treasury in adjudicating the matter. "These laws stipulate that loss caused to the state must be shown in the form of a real, factual and definite amount," Gatot explained. He also announced that there was no dissenting opinion--the verdict was unanimous.

The verdict has sparked controversy. "I am extremely disappointed with the verdict," said Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh. The prosecution had called upon the court to sentence Neloe to three years in prison in addition to fining him Rp1 billion. Prosecutor Baringin Sianturi accused the court of misinterpreting the law in adjudicating the final charge of "causing loss to the state". According to Baringin, the court applied the Anti-Corruption Law in adjudicating the first two charges of "illegal conduct" and "profiting another person". "But, when dealing with the charge of 'causing loss to the state', the court applied the Laws on the State Treasury," explained Baringin, accusing the court of acting inconsistently in its ruling.

According to Baringin, the Anti-Corruption Law (Law No. 31/1999) stipulates that corruption is a formal offence. This means that if the elements of "illegal conduct" and "profiting another person" are met, the loss caused to the state need not be shown in the form of a 'real and definite' amount. Any indication of loss caused to the state should be enough to fulfill the final charge.

Neloe's lawyer, Rocky Awondatu rejected Baringin's claims, maintaining that the court was correct in applying the Laws on the State Treasury. "Even if the Anti-Corruption Law deals with loss caused to the state, this does not mean that other laws are inapplicable," he said.

Rocky further insisted that the state did not suffer loss as a result of Neloe's actions. Rocky referred to two letters sent from Bank Mandiri to Bank Mandiri Director, Sholeh Tasripan, dated December 21 and December 30. According to Rocky, these letters stated that there was no evidence that CGN had fallen behind in repaying the primary debt, any fines or interest, or the remaining claim which had not passed the 2007 deadline.

Gatot further explained that there had been no debt rescheduling in this case because the credit repayment deadline had originally been set at 2007. However, Gatot did acknowledge that there had been a postponement of interest payments. Nevertheless, the court concluded that there was no element of conspiracy or embezzlement on behalf of the defendants. The court also noted that the credit repayment installments had been met. "There is no problem with the credit, so the state can not be considered to have suffered loss," said Gatot.

But Prosecutor Baringin rejects this reasoning. According to Baringin, these repayment installations were only made to settle the case. "They only took place after we arrested the debtors," Baringin claimed.

Baringin's claim was corroborated by judge Johanes Suhadi, one of the judges presiding over the other Bank Mandiri case, involving CGN directors Edyson, Saiful Anwar and Diman Ponijan. Chaired by Sri Mulyani, the judicial panel presiding over that case also exonerated the three defendants from corruption charges, again on the grounds that the charge of "loss caused to the state" had
not been met. Judge Johanes gave a dissenting opinion in the case, opposing the majority verdict.

According to Johanes, the first charge of "illegal conduct" had been met because the request for credit was approved in just one day without undergoing the requisite debtor analysis and collateral checking stages. This violated the banking guidelines set for Bank Mandiri and other banks. "This violated the principles of prudent banking. Loss to the state occurred at the moment the credit was extended," explained Johanes.

Former House of Representatives (DPR) Law Commission member, Firman Djaya Daeli, concurred. According to Firman, the court should have considered the spirit behind the Anti-Corruption Law. According to Firman, the Anti-Corruption Law has a broad definition of "loss caused to the state". "The charge of loss to the state would have been met under this law," said Firman, adding that the judicial panel took a narrow interpretation of the charge.

Separately, criminal law expert from the University of Indonesia, Rudi Satryo, confirmed that the court and the prosecution had applied different laws in the Bank Mandiri case. According to Rudi, the Anti-Corruption Law does not require the prosecution to show "concrete loss" caused to the state. However, Rudi conceded that the judges may have been searching for clearer legislation, and the State Treasury Laws give a clearer stipulation on the issue of "loss caused to the state".

According to deputy coordinator of Indonesia Corruption Watch, Danang Widyoko, the verdict gives strength to claims that the South Jakarta District Court is a graveyard for corruption lawsuits. This belief has already been proven in the corruption cases involving Nurdin Halid, Pande Lubis and Tjoko Tjandra, Ricardo Gelael, Tommy Suharto and Sudjiono Timan. "The only reason that BNI directors were found guilty of corruption by the court is because the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) strictly monitored that case," said Danang.

In the meantime, South Jakarta District Court head, Andi Samsan Nganro, has refused to comment on the case. Andi defended the judicial panel verdict, but acknowledged that the public lacks trust in the judiciary as a result of the actions of some unprofessional judges. "I can understand how such a big case has triggered this reaction," said Andi, acknowledging this problem.

Abdul Manan, Dian Yuliastuti, Maria Hasugian

TEMPO, MARCH 06, 2006-027/P. 28 Heading Law