Monday, December 18, 2006

Mandek di Tangan Mahkamah

Pemerintah bisa menerbitkan peraturan pengganti undang-undang untuk mengganti Undang-Undang Komisi Kebenaran. DPR akan merevisi kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi.

PUTUSAN itu dengan cepat melompat dari ruang sidang Mahkamah Konstitusi ke ruang kerja Ketua Komisi Hukum DPR, Trimedya Panjaitan, di kawasan Senayan, Jakarta. Kamis dua pekan lalu, beberapa saat setelah Mahkamah mengetukkan palunya, Trimedya segera mendapat berita yang membuatnya terperanjat. Mahkamah mencabut Undang-Undang Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi. ”Putusan ini menampar wajah Dewan,” ujar Trimedya.

Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan produk DPR tersebut bertentangan dengan konstitusi. Dengan dicabutnya Undang-Undang No. 27/2004 itu, praktis upaya penyelesaian kasus pelanggaran hak asasi lewat jalur rekonsiliasi mandek. Demikian pula nasib 42 calon anggota Komisi Kebenaran hasil seleksi DPR. Mereka otomatis ”minggir”. ”Kita harus mulai dari nol lagi,” ujar Ifdhal Kasim, Direktur Hukum Reform Institute, mengomentari ”matinya” UU Komisi Kebenaran.

Putusan Mahkamah itu menjawab gugatan uji material yang diajukan, antara lain, LBH Jakarta, Elsam, Kontras, Solidaritas Nusa Bangsa, dan Imparsial. Setahun silam lembaga-lembaga tersebut meminta Mahkamah membatalkan pasal 1 ayat 9, pasal 27, dan pasal 44 Undang-Undang Komisi Kebenaran. Mereka menyebut pasal-pasal itu bertentangan dengan UUD 45.

Pada pasal 1 ayat 9, misalnya, disebutkan amnesti diberikan presiden untuk pelaku pelanggaran berat terhadap hak asasi setelah memperhatikan pertimbangan DPR. Menurut Mahkamah, untuk pelaku pelanggaran berat hak asasi tidak ada ruang sama sekali untuk amnesti. Jadi, pasal ini bertentangan dengan hukum internasional yang sudah diterima oleh hukum Indonesia.

Adapun pasal 27 menegaskan, kompensasi dan rehabilitasi untuk korban diberikan jika permohonan amnesti pelaku kejahatan dikabulkan presiden. Menurut Mahkamah, pemberian kompensasi dan rehabilitasi bagi korban tidak bergantung pada satu kondisi, termasuk amnesti. Nah, pasal ini dinilai bertabrakan dengan konstitusi, yang memberikan jaminan warga Indonesia mendapat perlindungan hak asasi.

Sebenarnya hanya pasal 27 yang dibatalkan Mahkamah. Pasal itu, menurut Mahkamah, jelas bertubrukan dengan UUD 45. Namun, karena seluruh ”operasional” Undang-Undang Komisi Kebenaran dinilai bergantung dan bermuara pada pasal 27, Mahkamah pun ”membekukan” undang-undang tersebut. Menurut Mahkamah, dengan aturan-aturan seperti itu, undang-undang itu justru tidak mendorong pelaku menyelesaikan perkaranya lewat Komisi Kebenaran. ”Karena mengandung banyak ketidakpastian hukum,” kata Ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi Jimly Asshiddiqie.

Sidarto Danusubroto, mantan Ketua Panitia Khusus RUU Komisi Kebenar-an, menyambut putusan itu dengan kecewa. ”Itu vonis yang sangat saya sayangkan,” kata anggota Fraksi PDI Perjuangan ini. Menurut dia, undang-undang ini dulu dibuat untuk melengkapi pengadilan hak asasi yang tidak bisa retroaktif, berlaku surut. ”Dengan putusan itu, situasinya kini jadi pincang,” ujarnya.

Kritik pedas juga disuarakan Direktur Institut Titian Perdamaian, Ichsan Malik. Menurut dia, dengan ”membekukan” UU Komisi Kebenaran, Mahkamah Konstitusi seperti tak ingin mencari kebenaran dalam kasus pelanggaran hak asasi. ”Sebaliknya, seperti ingin menutup kasus pelanggaran hak asasi masa lalu dengan melangkah di luar permintaan pemohon,” ujarnya.

Trimedya mencatat ini kedua kalinya Mahkamah Konstitusi membuat putusan berlebihan. Sebelumnya, putusan berlebih di luar permintaan pemohon (ultra petitum) pernah dijatuhkan saat menyidangkan gugatan uji material Undang-Undang Komisi Yudisial. Menurut Trimedya, jika ini terus terjadi, bisa gawat. ”Bukan hanya memboroskan uang negara karena untuk membuat satu undang-undang menghabiskan sekitar Rp 3 miliar, tapi ini menyebabkan terjadinya kekosongan hukum,” ujarnya.

Sejauh ini, kata Trimedya, dia belum tahu wadah untuk mengadakan rekonsiliasi setelah Komisi Kebenaran dibekukan. Komisi hukum, ujarnya, akan membicarakan soal ini lebih dulu dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi. ”Pada awal Januari, kami akan menggelar rapat konsultasi dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi,” ujarnya. ”Ini prioritas.”

Pekan lalu Komisi Hukum sudah mengirim surat ke Badan Legislatif DPR. Mereka mengusulkan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi direvisi. Komisi akan meminta kewenangan lembaga itu direvisi. Setelah itu, baru Komisi akan membahas mekanisme kontrol bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi. ”Ini didasari bahwa tidak ada lembaga yang memiliki impunitas,” ujarnya.

Tak semua kecewa terhadap putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Aktivis hak asasi yang juga bekas Sekjen Komnas HAM, Asmara Nababan, misalnya, menganggap putusan Mahkamah tepat. ”Dari segi standar internasional, Undang-Undang Komisi Kebenaran memang kurang memadai,” ujarnya. ”Putusan ini juga menunjukkan rendahnya kualitas DPR dan pemerintah merumuskan undang-undang,” ujarnya lagi. Agar tak terjadi kekosongan hukum, Asmara mengusulkan pemerintah segera mengeluarkan peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang (perpu). ”Atau masyarakat membuat sendiri Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi,” ujarnya.

Harapan ini pula yang merayap di hati Rukayyah. Warga Desa Lamroh, Kuta Baro, Aceh Besar ini mengharap masyarakat atau Pemerintah Daerah Aceh segera membuat Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi. Kepada Tempo, pekan lalu, perempuan ini menyatakan dirinya sangat sedih kala mendengar Mahkamah mencabut UU Komisi Kebenaran. ”Saya kecewa kepada pemerintah yang seperti menutup mata terhadap pelanggaran hak asasi, khususnya di Aceh,” ujarnya.

Konflik Aceh memang membuat perempuan 38 tahun ini kehilangan adiknya, M. Amin. Sang adik tewas tertembak kepalanya sesaat setelah keluar dari pintu rumahnya. Rukayyah tak tahu pelakunya, aparat TNI atau anggota Gerakan Aceh Merdeka. ”Tapi saya akan terus berjuang menuntut keadilan, walau satu pintu telah tertutup,” ujarnya.

Keinginan Rukayyah—dan mungkin jutaan korban konflik Aceh lainnya—bisa jadi terwujud. Menurut Ketua Komisi Hukum dan Pemerintahan DPRD Aceh, Mukhlis Muchtar, Undang-Undang Pemerintahan Aceh dan kesepakatan Helsinki memang mengamanatkan dibentuknya komisi kebenaran. ”Di Aceh komisi ini harus ada. Ini kewajiban konstitusional,” ujarnya.

Maria Hasugian, Abdul Manan, Sunariah, Adi Warsidi (Banda Aceh)

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 43/XXXV/18 - 24 Desember 2006

Suara dari Cihideung

Korban kasus Talangsari tetap menuntut keadilan. Setelah Komisi Kebenaran dibatalkan, harapan mereka kini pengadilan.

MEREKA berkumpul di sebuah rumah di Dukuh Cihideung, Desa Rajabasa Lama, Lampung Timur. Setelah berjam-jam bertukar pikiran, Rabu malam pekan lalu 43 keluarga korban ”kasus Talangsari” itu mengambil putusan. Mereka akan mendesak digelarnya pengadilan atas kasus Talangsari, peristiwa yang membuat mereka menderita. ”Kami tetap meminta adanya pengadilan,” kata Azwar, 64 tahun, salah satu korban.

Talangsari adalah satu dari sekian kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang potensial menjadi pekerjaan rumah Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi. Lembaga yang dibentuk atas perintah Undang-Undang tentang Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi (KKR) ini memiliki tugas pokok menyelesaikan pelanggaran HAM berat di masa lalu di luar jalur pengadilan.

Menurut Sidarto Danusubroto, bekas Ketua Panitia Khusus RUU Komisi Kebenaran, tugas lembaga ini memang menyelesaikan kasus pelanggaran HAM berat yang terjadi sebelum ada Undang-Undang Pengadilan HAM. Ada beberapa kasus yang sudah ”diincar” untuk ditangani komisi ini, antara lain peristiwa 1965, kasus Tanjung Priok, kasus Talangsari, dan kasus penculikan para aktivis.

Menurut calon anggota Komisi Kebenaran, Stanley Adiprasetyo, semua pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang terjadi sebelum tahun 2000 bisa diselesaikan lewat Komisi Kebenaran. ”Tapi kini berantakan setelah Mahkamah Konstitusi membatalkan Undang-Undang KKR,” ujarnya.

Salah satu yang kecewa dengan lenyapnya undang-undang itu, ya, para korban kasus Talangsari. Menurut Azwar, sebagian korban kasus Talangsari memang sangat berharap kasus mereka diselesaikan oleh Komisi Kebenaran. ”Tapi, karena sudah dibatalkan, sekarang mau tidak mau harus lewat pengadilan,” ujarnya.

Kasus Talangsari bermula dari penyerbuan aparat keamanan ke pondok pengajian di Dukuh Cihideung, Dusun Talangsari III, Desa Rajabasa Lama, Lampung Timur. Penyerbuan yang terjadi pada 7 Februari 1989 itu menewaskan 246 orang dan membuat puluhan rumah penduduk habis terbakar. Pu-luhan warga ditangkap dan diinterogasi di Markas Komando Resor Garuda Hitam. Bertahun-tahun kemudian, seiring perubahan zaman, warga korban kasus Talangsari ini menuntut pelaku penyerbuan diadili.

Sekitar sepuluh tahun kemudian, sempat terjadi islah (perdamaian) antara sebagian korban dan bekas Komandan Korem Garuda Hitam, A.M. Hendropriyono. Tapi mereka yang bersedia islah jumlahnya kecil, sekitar 30-an dari total 270-an orang yang menyatakan diri korban Talangsari. Mereka yang bersedia islah dijanjikan akan menerima sejumlah kompensasi. Tapi, belakangan, sejumlah warga yang setuju islah pada Juli 1998 itu menuntut kasus ini dibawa ke pengadilan. ”Mungkin karena janji adanya kompensasi tak terbukti,” kata Azwar.

Sampai kini tak banyak kemajuan dalam pengusutan ”kasus Talangsari” ini. Menurut Kepala Operasional Komisi Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan (Kontras), Indria Fernida, kasus ini masih diselidiki Komnas HAM. ”Kasus ini harus terus dikawal. Kalau tidak, bisa mandek,” ujarnya. Sejak 2005, sudah lima kali Kontras bersama keluarga korban Talangsari menagih perkembangan kasus ini ke Komnas HAM.

Mochamad Farid, anggota Komnas HAM, mengatakan hasil kerja tim Talangsari sudah selesai pertengahan 2006. Tim Talangsari ini diketuai Eny Suprapto dan beranggota, antara lain, Mayor Jenderal (Purn.) Sjamsoedin. Cuma, bagaimana hasilnya, Mochamad Farid tak bersedia membuka. ”Tim masih melakukan analisis hukumnya,” katanya.

Menurut Azwar, harapan keluarga korban atas penyelesaian kasus ini bermacam-macam. Sebagian, misalnya, menginginkan adanya ganti rugi karena rumahnya pernah habis dibakar dan hartanya ludes. Azwar sendiri kehilangan anaknya, Warsito, 11 tahun. Bocah itu kini hilang entah ke mana. Selain kehilangan Warsito, rumahnya juga rata dengan tanah dibakar aparat. Azwar juga sempat berkali-kali mendekam di tahanan Korem Garuda Hitam untuk menjalani pemeriksaan. ”Saya hanya ingin keadilan ditegakkan,” katanya.

Abdul Manan, Nurrochman (Lampung)

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 43/XXXV/18 - 24 Desember 2006

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The Endof the Queen’s Legacy

The Constitutional Court deletes three articles from the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court is yet to react.

THE former Indonesian Islamic Workers Union Chairman, Eggy Sudjana, happily shook hands with his friend, Pandapotan Lubis, and his lawyers after winning his case in the Constitutional Court. The audience clapped their hands and one person shouted, “Long live the judges!”

The nine judges of the court had just “frozen” several articles on insult of the President from the Criminal Code. Those articles are no longer considered compatible with the Constitution. “This is indeed a historical decision,” said Sudjana.

Last July, Sudjana and Lubis proposed a judicial review on the articles on insult of the President to the Constitutional Court. Those are articles 134, 136, and 137. The two chose to focus on those articles because both had been charged with these offenses. They considered that the articles are not in the spirit of democracy. “Originally, those Dutch colonial-legacy articles were meant to protect the Queen’s dignity,” said Sudjana.

Most of the Constitutional Court judges agreed with Sudjana. Their 76-page finding pronounced those articles irrelevant to Indonesia as a lawful democratic nation. The judges also cited University of Indonesia law professor, Mardjono Reksodipuro, who stated that the President did not need explicit articles to guard his dignity. According to Reksodipuro, whoever feels offended can use Article 310 of the Criminal Code to defend his or her decorum. “In a republic, the nation’s requirements are not linked with the president’s personal needs, such as in the case of a monarchy,” said Reksodipuro.

The Court also presumed that those articles created an ambiguity in the law because they may restrict demonstration activities, limit the free expression of opinions and criticisms as well as freedom of speech.

Since the articles have been removed, the police officers cannot arrest anyone for offending the President. It has changed to complaint offence which is regulated in article 310. The penalty in this article is lighter than those in articles 134, 136 bis, and 137. The maximum penalty for insulting the President was six years in jail, while for chapter 310 it is only one year and four months.

A Constitutional Court judge who wished to remain anonymous mentioned that the argument whether the articles should stay or not has been circulating since the case started last September. “Till the last moment, when the verdict was read, those who wanted to keep the articles didn’t budge,” he said. The argument was tough. Only five out of nine judges agreed to dismiss the chapters. Those who dissented are I Dewa Gde Palguna, Soedarsono, H.A.S Natabaya, and Achmad Roestandi.

Palace spokesperson, Andi Mallarangeng, stated President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono respected the verdict. “We accept the Constitutional Court’s decision,” said Mallarangeng. At the moment, his division is currently reviewing the channels still available to legal institutions if such a case occurs. According to Mallarangeng, the eradication of those articles should not mean that anybody may criticize or humiliate the President. “It must be limited by a code of ethics and the public can judge the action,” he said.

The government must now clarify the Constitutional Court verdict. “We will no longer use those articles,” said Justice & Human Rights Department Coordination Director, Wicipto. However, he added, it does not apply for current ongoing cases. According to Wicipto, the government is also correcting similar articles in the new Criminal Code draft.

According to Tempo’s record, there are three other insult of the President cases still in progress. They are: Eggy Sudjana’s case, Pandapotan Lubis’s case, and the case involving the Rakyat Merdeka newspaper executive editor, Supratman. Sudjana was charged for insulting the President with his statement which accused the President to have received a luxury Jaguar car from an entrepreneur.

Lubis was charged for putting up humiliating pictures and stickers of the President and Vice President at the Hotel Indonesia roundabout on May 16, 2006. Supratman was charged for printing discrediting reports on President Megawati in the paper’s January-February 2003 editions. Sudjana’s and Lubis’s cases are still in progress at the Central Jakarta District Court, whereas Supratman’s case is being tried at the Appellate State Court after the South Jakarta District Court sentenced him to six months in jail.

According to Sudjana’s lawyer, Firman Wijaya, the judges who are handling those presidential insult cases, should consider the Constitutional Court’s verdict. “They have to void the prosecutor’s charges because the articles are no longer in use,” said Wijaya. On the other hand, Supreme Court spokesperson, Djoko Sarwoko, stated that his department has no comment on the Constitutional Court’s verdict. “We are still studying the verdict,” said Sarwoko.

Abdul Manan, Sandy Indra Pratama


The Missing

AFTER a long period and a string of victims, the articles on presidential insult were eradicated from the Criminal Code. Those articles are as follows:

Article 134
An intentional humiliation of the President and Vice President will be sentenced to jail for a maximum of six years or fined Rp4,500.

Article 136 bis
An intentional verbal humiliation which is mentioned in Article 134, including the actions mentioned in Article 315 if the humiliation is not conducted in front of the targeted party, either in public or not in public but in the presence of more than four people or another person who is at the location inadvertently and therefore feels offended.

Arcticle 137
1. Whoever broadcasts, displays, or erects either writing or images which humiliate the President or Vice President with the intention of having others see them, will be sentenced to jail for a maximum of one year and four months or fined a maximum of Rp4,500.
2. If the guilty party conducts his/her misbehavior when he/she still occupies a position and the crime is conducted less than two years after his/her first punishment for the same crime, he/she can be dismissed from his/her position.

The Victims

2002
Nanang and Muzakkir (People’s Youth Movement activists)
Charged with stepping on photographs of President Megawati and Vice President Hamzah Haz during a demonstration in front of the State Palace on June 14, 2002.
The Central Jakarta District Court sentenced them to one year in jail.

2003
Iqbal Siregar (Muslim Youth Movement activist)
Charged for insulting President Megawati Sukarnoputri on January 15, 2003.
The Central Jakarta District Court sentenced him to five months in jail on June 16, 2003.

2004
Bay Harkat Firdaus aka Jonday (student of Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic University, Jakarta)
Charged with burning images of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla during a demonstration against the fuel prices hike on December 20, 2004.
On May 26, 2005, the South Jakarta District Court sentenced him to five months and two days in jail.

I Wayan Suardana (student activist from Udayana University, Denpasar)
Charged with insulting the President and Vice President during a demonstration against the fuel prices hike on December 2004.
The Denpasar District Court sentenced him to six months in jail on June 10, 2005.

2006
Fahrul Rohman aka Paunk (student activist from Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic University, Jakarta)
Charged with insulting the President during a demonstration on June 16, 2006.
The South Jakarta District Court sentenced him to three months and 23 days in jail on October 30, 2006.


Tempo Magazine, No. 15/VII/Dec 12 - 18, 2006

Stuck in Bureaucracy

Komnas HAM asks two universities to evaluate its performance.

THE National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) has found a way to put a stop to the endless criticism that has beleaguered it since its foundation, 13 years ago. The most common criticisms are those which accuse the Commission of being powerless in pursuing and exposing human rights abuse. The public has been waiting since its formation for some “real action” in the handling of human rights abuse cases.

The solution, raised by Komnas HAM head Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, last October, is to have an independent evaluation of the Commission. The solution was approved in a meeting. “The evaluation will be a mirror with which we, Commission members can look at ourselves,” said Abdul Hakim. The result can also serve as “homework” to improve the institution.

The Human Rights Study Center at Surabaya University (Ubaya) and the Economic Development and Research Institute at Gadjah Mada University (UGM) were selected as the evaluation institutes. Komnas HAM told the two institutes to focus on the human rights substance and the organization of the Commission. The two will share this task, the Research Institute at UGM will evaluate the commission’s management while the Study Center in Surabaya will research the human rights substance.

They plan to finish their evaluation in January next year. The results are in early and the evaluation is almost complete. Revrisond Baswir, the UGM evaluation team leader, believes his team has found the Commission’s fundamental problem. “The trouble lies in the budget system,” he said. According to Baswir, Komnas HAM receives its budget from the government. The salary standard for Komnas HAM staff is equivalent to civil officials. “Not the salary typical of government officials,” he said.

With that system, Baswir says, Komnas HAM cannot become an independent institution. “The system is very government-like,” he added. Even an independent newcomer will find it hard to keep his or her impartiality. “It’s hard to escape once you have entered this black hole, however independent you are,” he said.

Meanwhile, the team from Surabaya University had surprising results. They found “two groups” within the Commission: those with problems and those with support. The two groups have significantly affected the function of Komnas HAM. The Surabaya University team leader, Yoan Nursari Simanjuntak, will not reveal any names. “The evaluation is still not final,” she said.

Abdul Hakim admitted that thus far they have encountered obstacles in substantiating human rights abuse cases. “More than ever since the reorganization of the work divisions,” he said. Previously, the organization of work divisions was based on the Commission’s functions: evaluation, research, justification, monitoring, and mediation. However, in 2004, the divisions were changed based on human rights issues such as civil politics, economic, socio-cultural, and groups with special protection. Each member is responsible for his own topic area.

The changes have caused some trouble because at times a case involves several different issues. “Then, one Komnas HAM member has to wait for another to act,” said Abdul Hakim. Consequently, this method of work division only serves to confuse the secretary-general, who cannot effectively manage the programs and the budget. For this reason, according to a Tempo source, a number of Komnas HAM members wish to return to the work division they had prior to 2004.

However, the most crucial and sensitive problem, which has continued for months, is the management of staff salary. Banners criticizing the secretary-general and Komnas HAM who are deemed to be inconsiderate to the fate of the staff have been put up in the Komnas HAM headquarters.

Abdul Hakim blamed it on the presidential regulation on the staff salary system, which has not been published yet. At present, he said, members of staff are categorized as civil officials (PNS) and non-PNS. The secretary-general, while waiting for another presidential regulation to modify the salary norms, has applied a different regulation that in effect reduces the staff salary by 70 percent.

The Komnas HAM secretary has discussed this matter with the Minister for Administrative Reform and the Finance Department and a conclusion was reached. “There will be an ad hoc payment system in 2007,” said Abdul Hakim.

Komnas HAM’s branches in regional districts also face the same problem. Thus far, the “regional commission” receives its funds from the regional government budget and is based on each program. Unfortunately, this system yields poor results. “There should be a special institutional budget,” said Abdul Hakim.

Asmara Nababan, Komnas HAM former secretary-general has his own opinion on the salary system. According to Nababan, the Commission should adopt the system used by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). “The KPK staff are not civil officials, but their salary comes from the State Budget,” he said.

Nevertheless, Nababan stated that Komnas HAM needed to reduce its number of staff. Presently, it has 35 members. Nababan compared the Komnas HAM staff to similar institutions in India and Africa. “They have only five members,” he said, mentioning other drawbacks of having large numbers of staff, “it slows down the decision-making process and wastes time.” Abdul Hakim agrees with Nababan. According to him, the number of staff is not mentioned in the draft of the Human Rights Law. The maximum is actually only 23. “This is a convention,” he said, hoping the selection committee for members of 2007-2012 Komnas HAM will follow this convention.

Komnas HAM, preparing to hire new staff, held a meeting last November to choose five members for the selection board. The five members are: Soetandyo Wigjosoebroto, Maria Hartiningsih, Musdah Mulia, Kemala Chandrakirana, and Azumardi Azra. They are to “search” for new members to replace 20 Commission members who will end their work period in August 2007.

In Nababan’s opinion, the new members will not improve Komnas HAM’s image. “Because the Commission is still too bureaucratic,” he said. Moreover, support from the government has further deteriorated since President Abdurrahman Wahid. “Gus Dur (President Abdurrahman Wahid) was very encouraging,” said Nababan. Similar opinion also came from Baswir. “Don’t expect too much from Komnas HAM. There is no flexibility there,” he said.

Maria Hasugian, Abdul Manan, Sunudyantoro (Surabaya)

Tempo Magazine, No. 15/VII/Dec 12 - 18, 2006

Monday, December 11, 2006

Lenyapnya Pasal Peninggalan Ratu

SENYUM mengembang lebar di wajah Eggy Sudjana. Bekas Ketua Umum Perhimpunan Pekerja Muslim Indonesia itu kemudian mengepalkan tangannya. Sejurus kemudian ia mendatangi rekannya, Pandapotan Lubis dan para penasihat hukumnya. Satu per satu disalaminya. Sejumlah pengunjung sidang bertepuk tangan gembira . ”Hidup hakim!” teriak salah seorang pengunjung.

Terperangkap Birokrasi

Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia (Komnas HAM) menempuh jalan tengah menjawab kritik. Berdiri 13 tahun silam, Komisi ini tak pernah sepi dari kritik. Yang paling kerap muncul adalah tudingan ”kurang darah” alias loyo mengejar dan mengungkap kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM. Padahal, sejak awal, masyarakat menunggu taring mereka ”menggigit” para pelanggar HAM .

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Pemred Playboy Indonesia Diseret ke Meja Hijau

Ranesi
07-12-2006

Erwin Arnada pemimpin redaksi Playboy Indonesia akhirnya diseret ke pengadilan. Sejak awal berdirinya majalah erotis ini, keberadaannya mengundang reaksi pro dan kontra. Sampai kantornya dipindah ke Bali, gara-gara kantor di Jakarta diserang kelompok muslim radikal. Bagaimana komentar Aliansi Jurnalis Independen? Berikut rangkuman wawancara Radio Nederland dengan sekretaris jenderal Aji Abdul Manan.

Abdul Manan: "Kami sangat menyayangkan pengadilan editor Playboy, karena ini menyangkut wilayah jurnalistik, mestinya belum dibawa ke pengadilan, itu harus diteliti dulu apakah editor Playboy itu melanggar kode etik atau tidak. Kami berpegang pada keputusan Dewan Pers yang sebelumnya menyatakan bahwa Playboy itu adalah produk jurnalistik, sehingga kalau ada pelanggaran harusnya diuji pertama kali dengan kode etik jurnalistik."

Radio Nederland Wereldomroep [RNW]: "Tapi bukan hal yang lumrah untuk menilai Playboy sebagai karya jurnalistik, baru setelah Dewan Pers mengkategorikannya sebagai karya jurnalistik AJI menerimanya. Yang mencolok Playboy Indonesia toh diseret ke pengadilan karena melanggar undang-undang kesusilaan, lalu apa udang yang ada di balik batu sikap moralis ini?"

AM: "Pemerintah menanggapi aspirasi beberapa kelompok radikal. Dengan mengadilinya seakan-akan mengriminalkan produk jurnalistik."

Mengalah
RNW: "Jadi ada sikap mengalah terhadap kelompok islam radikal?"

AM: "Kebijakan pemerintah sering mengikuti angin politik. Kalau ada hal yang sebelumnya dianggap biasa bisa dianggap luar biasa walaupun subyeknya sama."

RNW: "Di media barat sering disinggung sikap bungkem kaum moderat di dunia Islam, yang kedengaran hanya suara-suara radikal. Sikap mengalah ini memang pas sekali dengan budaya Indonesia, namun mengalah bisa berakibat dikalahkan."

AM: Yah kesadaran politik tidak dimiliki semua orang tapi sebagai organisasi jurnalis kami harus bisa mengungkapkan pendapat.

Radio Nederland
http://www.ranesi.nl/arsipaktua/Asia/indonesia060905/pemred_playboy_indo061207

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Overfishing Funds

Former Minister of Maritime Affairs, Rokhmin Dahuri, is arrested on charges of embezzling non-budgetary funds. The KPK is accused of being selective.

THE sun had long since set by the time Rokhmin Dahuri, 48, emerged from the offices of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) on Thursday last week. He had been inside for some 10 hours answering questions from investigators. Although worn out, the former Minister of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries (2001-2004) was unable to return to his home in Bogor straight away. A silver Toyota Kijang was awaiting him. This was a KPK vehicle for transporting detainees that was to deliver Rokhmin to face a new contest at the National Police Criminal Investigation Bureau detention center.

Although later admitting he was shocked, Rokhmin tried to put on a brave face and smiled to the scores of journalists who had been waiting for him in front of the building since early afternoon. “I don’t believe that I did wrong,” he said.

Rokhmin is the second minister from the period of the Megawati Sukarnoputri administration that has been indicted on charges of corruption. Prior to this, former Minister of Religious Affairs, Said Agil Husin Al Munawar, was caught out over the embezzlement of Religious Community Perpetuity Funds. Now Rokhmin, a model lecturer in 1995, has been indicted for the embezzlement of non-budgetary funds.

Non-budgetary funds are monies collected from activities not covered by the State Budget. During the New Order period of former President Suharto, funds such as these were abundant and freely used—including for example the State Logistics Agency non-budgetary funds that were allegedly exploited by Golkar Party leader Akbar Tandjung. Nowadays, those receiving such funds can be deemed to have acted corruptly.

This is what has befallen Rokhmin. According to KPK deputy head Tumpak Hatorangan Panggabean, the case began with the collection of tactical non-budgetary funds over the period April 18, 2002 to March 23, 2005. These monies were collected from a 1-percent cut taken out of the departmental budget and decentralization funds from some 30 provinces, plus other sources.

Amounting to Rp31.7 billion, it was deposited in two bank accounts: one account to store funds that originated from within the department—the 1-percent cuts—which had a balance of Rp12 billion; the second account to hold monies from outside of the department, the deposits from business people involved in the maritime sector.

Rokhmin’s lawyer, Herman Kadir has confirmed that such collections did exist but denies that it originated from a 1-percent cut taken from departmental funds. He asserts that the deposits originated from departmental offices in the regencies that were working on maritime projects. “The amount was only around 0.25 percent of the project’s total value,” said Herman.

Herman also says that evidence of these deposits was recorded in the accounts held at the Department of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries General Secretariat. Including receipts. From what he has seen, for example, there was a Rp85-million deposit from East Java, Jambi Rp20 million, and so forth.

All of the receipts, totaling in the hundreds, are now in the hands of the KPK. What is surprising however is that the majority of the deposits turn out to be from outside the Department of Maritime Affairs, or more precisely from businesspeople. Were they in order to obtain special treatment? “There is no link with providing special treatment to specific [individuals],” said Herman.

In relation to the issue of these deposits, on Wednesday last week the KPK questioned the boss of the Artha Graha Group, Tomy Winata, and the Director of PT Maritime Timur Jaya, David Tjioe. PT Maritime is one of the companies owned by Tomy that is active in the maritime sector with operations in Tual, Southeast Maluku. According to a source in the KPK, Tomy was questioned because one of the witnesses cited him as having deposited funds. “We summoned [them] to seek clarification,” said Tumpak.

The KPK questioned Tomy over two matters, the operations of his company in Tual and the deposits he made with the Department of Maritime Affairs. Speaking with Tempo during an interview last Friday, Rokhmin admitted that Tomy Winata was one of those that donated into the department’s non-budgetary bank account. As to the amount, however, Rokhmin was unable to say. “I don’t remember,” he said. Herman, who claims to have seen the receipts from the donors, has also refused to speak on the question of Tomy’s donation. “I have no comment on the matter,” he said.

Tomy, however, when speaking with journalists who met him following his questioning at the KPK, denied that there was any deposit. “There wasn’t any [flow of funds]. It’s because there wasn’t any, that of course no sum was mentioned,” said Tomy.

Collecting illegal funds is not the only accusation that has been leveled against Rokhmin. The professor from the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB) has also been accused of using the funds for personal gain. According to Tumpak, the KPK is still investigating the matter. “We are still investigating how much,” said Tumpak.

One of the private matters that Rokhmin, the child of a fisherman from Cirebon, reputedly “consumed” the funds for was his inauguration as a professor at the IPB’s Faculty of Fisheries and Maritime Science in January 2003. And the event was indeed a massive one. Prof. Dr. Ir. Rokhmin Dahuri MS invited former President Megawati and several cabinet ministers. It was reported to have cost Rp300 million or thereabouts—15 times the budget for other professors’ inaugurations.

Rokhmin rejects the accusation that he used the non-budgetary funds for personal gain. According to Rokhmin, all of the funds collected were used for the interests of the Department. “For fishermen for example, social interests, making laws.”

The non-budgetary collection of funds says Rokhmin, is customary in all departments and is voluntary. So, this is not a new practice. “While I was the director-general, and the minister was Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, practices such as this were already taking place,” he said.

But, when asked to confirm Rokhmin’s statement, Sarwono refuted it outright. “That’s nonsense,” said the Jakarta Regional House of Representatives member who is also the former Minister for the Environment. According to Sarwono, during the time he headed up the Maritime Affairs Department between 1999 and 2001, all of the Department’s funds came from the State Budget. “There were no non-budgetary funds, because indeed it was forbidden to use such funds. Non-budgetary funds were an innovation by Rokhmin,” said Sarwono. So if Rokhmin now finds himself being questioned over the issue says Sarwono, “that’s his affair, not mine.”

Is it true then, that this was indeed an individual initiative by Rokhmin and is it because of this that his lawyer, Herman, is so upset? Herman has accused the KPK of being selective because it has failed to question Freddy Numberi, the current Minister of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries. Whereas based on information he has, the collection of funds continued to take place until March 2006.

Numberi, who headed up the department until October 2004, has an answer. “When I became the minister, I said it was not allowed [to continue the collections] because it breached the rules,” said Numberi. Nevertheless, he admits that the funds were still being used after their collection had been stopped.

According to Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politician Ganjar Pranowo, the case smacks of politics and selectivity. He goes on to cite three corruption cases that have something in common: the case of the former Minister of Religious Affairs, Said Agil, the former head of the Investment Coordinating Board, Theo F. Toemion and now Rokhmin’s case. The similarity is, “They’re all Megawati’s people.” And Rokhmin’s closeness to Megawati has indeed long been common knowledge.

Ganjar suspects that the corruption cases launched against people close to PDI-P are merely designed as a threat. “Perhaps because we have been offered ministerial seats on three occasions, but chose to stay in opposition,” said the former member of the House of Representatives Maritime Affairs Commission.

He also points to the strong nuances of selectivity after noting that all of those indicted are people from the era of the Megawati administration. “Why have only Mega’s cabinet ministers been targeted, while those during the era of [Presidents] Habibie and Abdurrahman Wahid have not?” he asks. Also, the practice of collecting non-budgetary funds may well have occurred in other departments said Ganjar.

Tumpak dismisses the accusations of selectivity saying that these people were questioned based upon the existing evidence. Even before they started questioning Rokhmin over the case in August, the KPK had detained the former Secretary-General of the Department of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries, Andi H. Taryoto. It was only after this that they took steps against Rokhmin. “We investigated because there were suspicions of criminal acts of corruption in accordance with the evidence that we obtained,” said the former public prosecutor.

Abdul Manan, Maria Hasugian, Tito Sianipar, Sutarto, Eworaswa

Majalah Tempo, No. 14/VII/Dec 05 - 12, 2006

Breaking the Code

The attorney general asks journalists who have interviewed fugitive corruptors to report their interviews.

ONE fugitive, Dharmono K. Lawi, does not refuse interviews. Former Speaker of the Banten Regional House of Representatives was not only interviewed by journalists, but he also appeared on a television program. Through the mass media, Lawi has voiced his protest. He felt that the legal institutions had treated him unfairly, so he decided to flee.

Lawi’s appearance in front of the press annoyed Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh. “People now say that if journalists are able to meet the fugitive. Why can’t we?” he said. For that reason, Saleh has asked the journalists who met Lawi to give an account of their meeting to the prosecutor’s office. “They should help us,” he added.

According to Saleh, these corruptors have escaped national justice. Journalists have the same civic responsibilities as the rest of the population. “It is true that journalists have a code of ethics, but they also have civic duties like ordinary citizens,” said Saleh.

As the legal base for his statement, Saleh pointed to the Regulations on the Elimination of Corruption. He stated that according to chapter 13 of the regulations, every citizen, including journalists, must aid the government in resolving a corruption case by giving the required information. “The only exception in this regulation is for priests,” he said.

Journalists cannot easily abide by this regulation. “We are indebted by the trust we have earned from our sources and the public,” said ANTV general manager of current affairs, Ivan Haris. According to Haris, the journalist’s code of ethics maintains that the journalist must keep the source’s identity secret if he/she asks for it. “Furthermore, journalists are not an intelligence unit,” added Haris. The prosecution called Haris after Lawi’s performance in the ANTV Wanted program.

A Press Council member, Leo Batubara, supported Haris’s statement. According to him, it is impossible for a journalist to give away his/her source to the prosecution, including corruptors. “A reporter’s duty is to fulfill the needs of the public, not the prosecution,” said Batubara. “If they give away their sources, the public won’t trust them anymore and they will be considered a police agent,” he added.

Atmakusumah Astraatmadja, a senior journalist who was also the former senior editor of Indonesia Raya newspaper, emphasized that the public’s trust is fundamental to a journalist. To breach this principle is to break the code of ethics. “Which is as bad as reporting false news,” he said. According to Astraatmadja, breaking the code of ethics will damage not only the journalist’s credibility, but also that of the mass media and the press in Indonesia.

He hopes that the journalists will follow in the steps of the late H.B. Jassin who kept his source’s identity a secret and went to jail for it. Jassin refused to reveal the identity of Ki Panjikusmin who wrote a short story titled ‘The Sky is Getting Darker.’ The account was published in Sastra magazine in 1968 and was intended to humiliate Muslims. Jassin was brought to trial and sentenced to one year in jail. To this day, nobody knows who Ki Panjikusmin is.

Astraatmadja then gave another example. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two Washington Post journalists, kept secret the identity of their source for 35 years. Mark Felt, had supplied them with information on the Watergate scandal involving President Nixon, and surrendered his own identity to the public after more than 30 years. “It is very important for journalists to keep the public’s trust or they will lose their credibility,” he said.

A penal law expert from the Law Faculty of the University of Indonesia, Rudi Satryo Mukantardjo, stated that it is acceptable if the attorney general’s statement was only a request. “Because journalists have a code of ethics which forbids them from giving away the identity of those sources who wish to remain anonymous,” he said. According to Mukantardjo, a journalist is usually willing to
suffer sanctions in honor of this code.

Saleh realizes that he is playing a losing game against the code. He understands the journalists and their code of ethics. “But, please, let us talk about it,” he said.

Abdul Manan, Maria Hasugian

Tempo Magazine, No. 14/VII/Dec 05 - 12, 2006

Monday, December 04, 2006

Terseret Dana Nonbujeter

Bekas Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Rokhmin Dahuri ditahan lantaran tuduhan korupsi dana nonbujeter. Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dianggap melakukan tebang pilih.

MATAHARI sudah lama tenggelam saat Rokhmin Dahuri, 48 tahun, keluar dari salah satu ruang di kantor Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, Kamis pekan lampau. Sudah 10 jam ia ada di dalamnya, menjawab semua pertanyaan dari penyidik. Walau letih, bekas Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan tahun 2001-2004 itu tak bisa segera pulang ke rumahnya di Bogor. Mobil Kijang silver sudah menunggunya. Itulah mobil tahanan KPK yang mengantar Rokhmin ke peraduan barunya di tahanan Badan Reserse dan Kriminal Markas Besar Polisi.

Lelaki itu berusaha tegar. Meski mengaku kaget, ia melemparkan senyum di depan puluhan wartawan yang menunggunya sejak siang. ”Saya tidak merasa bersalah,” ujarnya.

Rokhmin menjadi menteri kedua di masa pemerintahan Megawati Soekarnoputri yang dijerat kasus korupsi. Sebelum ini, bekas Menteri Agama Said Agil Husin Al Munawar tersandung masalah korupsi Dana Abadi Umat. Kini, dosen teladan nasional tahun 1995 itu dijerat dengan kasus korupsi dana nonbujeter.

Dana nonbujeter adalah dana yang terkumpul dari kegiatan di luar lingkup yang tercantum dalam neraca anggaran negara. Pada masa Orde Baru, dana seperti ini berseliweran dan bebas digunakan—di antaranya dana nonbujeter Bulog yang dituduh dimanfaatkan oleh Ketua Partai Golkar Akbar Tandjung. Sekarang, penerima dana bisa dianggap melakukan korupsi.

Inilah yang menimpa Rokhmin. Menurut Wakil Ketua Bidang Penindakan KPK, Tumpak Hatorangan Panggabean, kasus ini bermula dari pengumpulan dana taktis nonbujeter selama periode 18 April 2002 hingga 23 Maret 2005. Duit itu dikumpulkan dari potongan 1 persen anggaran departemen dan dana dekonsentrasi dari 30 provinsi, plus sumber-sumber lainnya.

Nilainya Rp 31,7 miliar, yang disimpan dalam dua rekening. Yang pertama untuk menampung dana yang berasal dari internal departemen, yaitu dari pemotongan anggaran. Besarnya Rp 12 miliar. Rekening kedua untuk duit dari luar departemen. Setoran dari para pengusaha bidang kelautan berada di rekening yang kedua.

Adanya pengumpulan dana ini dibenarkan oleh pengacara Rokhmin, Herman Kadir. Namun dia membantah jika dikatakan sumbernya berasal dari potongan dana departemen yang besarnya 1 persen. Yang benar, setoran itu berasal dari kantor departemen di daerah yang mengerjakan proyek kelautan. ”Nilainya hanya sekitar 0,25 persen dari total proyek,” kata Herman.

Bukti setoran-setoran itu pun, ujar Herman, tercatat di pembukuan Sekretariat Jenderal Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan. Termasuk kuitansi penerimaannya. Dari yang ia lihat, setoran itu misalnya ada yang dari Jawa Timur Rp 85 juta, Jambi 20 juta.

Semua kuitansi penerimaan yang jumlahnya ratusan itu kini sudah ada di tangan KPK. Yang mengejutkan, sebagian besar penyetor tersebut ternyata dari luar Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, tepatnya para pengusaha. Agar dapat perlakuan khusus? ”Itu tak ada kaitannya dengan pemberian keistimewaan tertentu,” Herman menandaskan.

Dalam kaitan urusan penyetoran inilah bos Grup Artha Graha Tomy Winata dan Direktur PT Maritim Timur Jaya David Tjioe, Rabu pekan lalu, diperiksa KPK. PT Maritim adalah salah satu perusahaan milik Tomy yang bergerak di bidang kelautan yang beroperasi di Tual, Maluku Tenggara. Menurut sumber di KPK, Tomy diperiksa karena salah satu saksi menyebut dia ikut menyetor dana. ”Kami panggil dalam rangka klarifikasi,” kata Tumpak H. Panggabean.

Ada dua hal yang ditanyakan KPK kepada Tomy, yakni soal operasi perusahaannya di Tual dan setorannya ke Departemen Kelautan. Kepada Tempo yang mewawancarainya Jumat lalu, Rokhmin mengaku Tomy Winata adalah salah satu penyumbang pundi-pundi rekening nonbujeter Departemen Kelautan. Hanya, berapa jumlahnya, Rokhmin tak bisa menyebut. ”Saya tidak ingat,” ujarnya. Herman Kadir, yang mengaku melihat kuitansi dari para penyumbang, juga tutup mulut soal sumbangan Tomy. ”Saya no comment soal itu,” ujarnya.

Namun, Tomy, kepada wartawan yang menemuinya usai pemeriksaan, membantah adanya sumbangan itu. ”Tidak ada (aliran dana itu). Karena memang nggak ada, makanya angka tidak disebutkan,” kata Tomy.

Tak hanya pengumpulan dana secara tak sah yang dituduhkan ke Rokhmin. Guru Besar Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB) itu juga dituduh menggunakan dana itu untuk kepentingan pribadi. Menurut Tumpak, untuk soal yang ini KPK masih terus melakukan investigasi. ”Kami masih menyidik berapa besarnya,” ujar Tumpak.

Salah satu urusan pribadi Rokhmin yang disebut-sebut ”memakan” dana itu adalah pengukuhan anak nelayan dari Cirebon ini sebagai guru besar tetap Fakultas Perikanan dan Ilmu Kelautan IPB pada Januari 2003. Acara itu memang diadakan besar-besaran. Prof Dr Ir Rokhmin Dahuri MS mengundang Presiden Megawati dan menteri-menteri kabinet. Biayanya kabarnya Rp 300-an juta—15 kali lipat bujet pengukuhan guru besar lainnya.

Rokhmin menampik tuduhan bahwa ia menggunakan dana nonbujeter untuk kepentingan pribadi. Menurut dia, seluruh dana yang dikumpulkan digunakan untuk kepentingan departemen. ”Misalnya untuk nelayan, kepentingan sosial, membuat undang-undang.”

Pemungutan dana nonbujeter, ujar Rokhmin, lazim terjadi di semua departemen. Sifatnya juga sukarela. Jadi, ini bukan praktek baru. ”Semasa saya jadi dirjen, menterinya Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, praktek semacam ini terjadi,” kata dia.

Tapi, saat dimintai konfirmasi soal pernyataan Rokhmin ini, Sarwono Kusumaatmadja langsung membantah. ”Nonsense itu,” kata anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah dari DKI Jakarta yang juga bekas Menteri Lingkungan Hidup ini. Menurut dia, selama memimpin Departemen Kelautan dari 1999 sampai 2001, semua dana departemen dari APBN. ”Nggak ada dana nonbujeter, karena memang sudah tidak dibenarkan menggunakan dana itu. Dana nonbujeter itu inovasi Rokhmin,” kata Sarwono. Kalau sekarang Rokhmin diperiksa, kata Sarwono, ”Itu urusan dia, bukan saya.”

Betul, ini memang urusan Rokhmin seorang dan karena itulah pengacaranya, Herman Kadir, berang. Ia menuding KPK tebang pilih karena tak memeriksa Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan saat ini, Freddy Numberi. Padahal, berdasarkan data yang dimilikinya, pemungutan dana itu tetap berlanjut hingga Maret 2006.

Freddy, yang mulai memimpin departemen ini sejak Oktober 2004, punya jawaban. ”Waktu saya jadi menteri, saya katakan tidak boleh (meneruskan pungutan itu) karena menyalahi aturan,” kata Freddy. Kendati demikian, dia mengakui dana itu masih digunakan setelah pengumpulannya dihentikan.

Dalam kasus ini, bagi politisi PDI Perjuangan Ganjar Pranowo, kuat sekali nuansa politis dan tebang pilih. Ia lalu menyebut tiga kasus korupsi yang punya kesamaan: kasus bekas Menteri Agama Said Agil, bekas Kepala Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal Theo F. Toemion, dan kini Rokhmin. Kesamaannya, ”Mereka adalah orang-orang Megawati.” Kedekatan Rokhmin dengan Megawati memang sudah lama tersiar.

Ganjar curiga kasus korupsi terhadap orang-orang yang dekat dengan Partai Banteng ini sekadar untuk menggertak. ”Mungkin karena kami sudah tiga kali ditawari untuk mengisi kursi menteri, tapi memilih jadi oposisi,” kata anggota Komisi Kelautan DPR itu.

Ia juga menunjukkan kuatnya nuansa tebang pilih setelah melihat korbannya hanya orang-orang di era pemerintahan Megawati. ”Kenapa yang dibidik hanya menteri-menteri kabinet Megawati, sedangkan pada masa Habibie dan Abdurrahman Wahid tidak?” kata dia. Padahal, kata Ganjar, praktek pengumpulan dana semacam itu mungkin saja terjadi di departemen lain.

Tumpak H. Panggabean menepis tudingan tebang pilih itu. Menurut dia, mereka memeriksa berdasar bukti yang ada. Sejak memeriksa kasus ini Agustus lalu, KPK terlebih dulu menahan bekas Sekretaris Jenderal Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, Andin H. Tartoyo. Setelah itu, baru melangkah ke Rokhmin. ”Kami menyidik karena ada dugaan tindak pidana korupsi sesuai bukti yang kami peroleh,” kata bekas jaksa ini.

Abdul Manan, Maria Hasugian, Tito Sianipar, Sutarto, Eworaswa

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 41/XXXV/04 - 10 Desember 2006

Karena Wartawan Bukan Intel

Jaksa Agung meminta wartawan yang mewawancarai koruptor buron melapor. Bisa mengancam kredibilitas wartawan.

STATUSNYA buron, tapi tak keberatan diwawancarai wartawan. Inilah gaya pelarian Dharmono K. Lawi. Selain diwawancarai media cetak, bekas Ketua DPRD Banten yang kini anggota DPR RI itu juga muncul di layar televisi. Lewat media itulah Dharmono mengeluarkan unek-uneknya. Ia mengaku memilih kabur lantaran diperlakukan tidak adil oleh aparat hukum.

Munculnya Dharmono di hadapan wartawan membuat Jaksa Agung Abdul Rahman Saleh gusar. ”Ada yang bilang wartawan saja bisa bertemu, masak kejaksaan nggak bisa,” katanya. Karena itu Jaksa Agung meminta wartawan yang berhasil menemui buron itu melapor ke kejaksaan. ”Sebaiknya wartawan membantu aparat penegak hukum,” katanya.

Menurut Jaksa Agung, koruptor merupakan buron negara dan bukan hanya buron kejaksaan. Jadi, wartawan punya kewajiban sama. ”Memang ada soal kode etik wartawan dan hak tolak. Tapi ada kewajiban asasi warga negara,” kata Abdul Rahman.

Arman, demikian Jaksa Agung ini biasa dipanggil kolega dekatnya, menunjuk kewajiban itu ada pada Undang-Undang tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pasal 13 undang-undang itu, kata Abdul Rahman, menegaskan bahwa setiap orang harus membantu dalam bentuk memberikan kesaksian dalam kasus korupsi. Tak terkecuali wartawan. ”Yang boleh menolak hanya rohaniwan,” katanya.

Bagi praktisi media, permintaan seperti itu sulit dipenuhi. ”Ini menyangkut kepercayaan narasumber dan publik,” kata General Manager of Current Affair ANTV, Ivan Haris. Menurut Ivan, kode etik jurnalistik mewajibkan wartawan melindungi identitas narasumber yang minta dirahasiakan. ”Lagi pula, wartawan bukan intel,” kata Ivan. Setelah Dharmono muncul dalam acara Wanted di ANTV, pengelola televisi ini sempat dipanggil ke Kejaksaan Agung.

Anggota Dewan Pers, Leo Batubara, mendukung pendapat Ivan. Menurut Leo, tidak mungkin wartawan memberikan informasi kepada kejaksaan tentang keberadaan narasumber, termasuk koruptor. ”Kewajiban wartawan memenuhi kepentingan publik, bukan kejaksaan,” kata Leo. ”Kalau wartawan lapor, pers tidak akan dipercaya lagi karena dianggap sebagai agen aparat keamanan,” tambahnya.

Wartawan senior Atmakusumah Astraatmadja menekankan, bagi wartawan kepercayaan publik merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting. Pelanggaran terhadap prinsip itu, ujarnya, sama dengan menerobos kode etik. ”Bobot dosanya sama dengan membuat berita bohong,” ujarnya. Jika dilanggar, kata Atmakusumah, tak hanya menghancurkan kredibilitas sang wartawan, juga media dan pers Indonesia.

Bekas redaktur senior harian Indonesia Raya ini berharap, para wartawan meniru almarhum H.B. Jassin dalam menjaga identitas narasumber. Jassin memilih bungkam saat dipaksa mengungkap siapa Ki Panjikusmin, penulis cerpen Langit Makin Mendung, yang dimuat di majalah Sastra pada 1968 dan dianggap menghina umat Islam. Jassin diadili dan divonis setahun penjara. Sampai kini, siapa itu Ki Panjikusmin tidak terungkap.

Atmakusumah memberikan contoh kasus yang hampir serupa di Amerika Serikat. Dua wartawan The Washington Post, Bob Woodward dan Carl Bernstein, selama 35 tahun menutup rapat narasumber yang memberi mereka informasi skandal Watergate yang melibatkan Presiden Nixon. Sang sumber itu, Mark Felt, yang akhirnya—setelah 30 tahun lebih—mengaku ke publik sebagai pemasok informasi kepada dua wartawan tersebut. ”Bagi wartawan, sangat penting menjaga kepercayaan publik. Jika tidak, dia kehilangan kredibilitasnya,” kata bekas Ketua Dewan Pers ini.

Pakar hukum pidana Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia Rudi Satryo Mukantardjo mengatakan, jika permintaan Jaksa Agung itu sebatas imbauan, hal itu tak membawa persoalan. ”Sebab, wartawan punya kode etik yang tak membolehkan membuka narasumber yang minta dirahasiakan,” katanya. Berdasar pengamatan Rudi, wartawan biasanya siap dipenjara untuk memegang prinsip tersebut.

Abdul Rahman agaknya mafhum, tembok tebal menghalang di depan matanya jika ia memaksa wartawan melaporkan keberadaan para koruptor yang mereka wawancarai. Arman menyatakan bahwa ia memahami kode etik wartawan yang tak mengizinkan membuka identitas narasumber. ”Tapi, mari kita buka wacana itu,” katanya.

Abdul Manan, Maria Hasugian

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 41/XXXV/04 - 10 Desember 2006