http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/02/23/constitutional-complaint-a-privilege-indonesia’s-democracy-should-enjoy.html

The Jakarta Post

Sigit Ardianto , NEW YORK | Mon, 02/23/2009 10:32 AM | Opinion

Indonesia’s democracy is flourishing more than ever. With a decision to have parliamentary candidates elected by way of majority vote, the Constitutional Court has elevated Indonesia’s democracy to a whole new level.

Sure, this creates a lot of technical confusion, but it is outweighed by the invaluable contribution to democracy it lays.

Majority vote means reducing the political parties’ intervention in the general elections, thereby providing further assurance that the elected members of the parliament truly represent the people.

At this point, Indonesia’s democracy has technically matched that of other more developed countries. The amendments of the 1945 Constitution have made sure the government is established based on democratic principles, i.e. that the government shall be commanded by the will of the people and not have a government that takes away the fundamental rights of the people. In this regard, unfortunately, one crucial element of democracy is still being held back by the Constitution. That element is the constitutional complaint.

A constitutional complaint is generally defined as request made by citizens to the court for adjudication on infringements of their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, due to the exercise of public power or state action.

The need for the constitutional complaint in Indonesia surfaces in particular due to constitutional rights infringements occurring last year.

According to Report of Freedom of Religion/Belief in Indonesia 2008, issued by the Jakarta-based SETARA Institute on Jan. 13, 2009, there were 367 violations of freedom of religion/belief in 265 incidents in 2008, which included 188 violations involving the state as the actor.

The incidents peaked in June (103 incidents), most of which were closely related to aggressive actions by certain groups against the Ahmadiyah community, and then between the defenders and opposition to Ahmadiyah’s religious belief rights.

The government’s reaction to these hostilities, i.e. the issuance of a decree banning the sect’s activities and spread, is regarded as creating even more incidents.

Unfortunately for the victims under this survey, there are no direct legal remedies for them to complain about infringements of their religious freedom rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Another more recent sample of constitutional rights issue is the seizure by the police of sound systems to be used during a pro-Gaza demonstration in Jakarta.

People knew there was a constitutional rights issue in this case, particularly free speech rights under Article 28E(3) of the 1945 Constitution, which says, “Each person has the right to freely associate, assemble and express their opinions,” and strengthened by Article 28F stating, “Each person has the right to… spread information via all kinds of medium available.” It could be classified as a case of infringement through physical state action (seizure).

Regrettably, the lack of direct legal recourse prevents efforts to resolve this type of constitutional rights issue, which in no way can be directly remedied by a mere judicial review.

The availability of the constitutional complaint in the US allows direct perseverance to all types of state action, including seizures, arrests or a mere hanging of a crucifix on public school walls.
Other than the US, with a slight difference in practice, most democratic countries provide for the constitutional complaint within their legal systems.

This includes Germany, Poland, South Korea and Spain. The need for a constitutional complaint brings us way back to John Rawls’ original position theory (John Rawls, 1971). It supposes that a veil of ignorance (causing subjectivity) is lifted and all citizens are returned to their original position, i.e. prior to the making of a social contract to form the state.

In their original position, would Indonesian people including the minorities agree to the formation of a government that takes away their liberty and freedom to exercise their rights agreed upon as the most fundamental and guaranteed by the Constitution? I think not.

Would these people agree to have to go through the wearisome procedure of constitutional review to the Constitutional Court, and then to the Supreme Court, just to assert these constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights? I think not.

My proposition therefore, is to allow the Constitutional Court to adjudicate the constitutional complaint. After all, one of the main tasks of most constitutional courts in other countries is actually adjudicating constitutional complaints. The obvious way to realize this of course is to amend the 1945 Constitution, which would undoubtedly be a tedious process.

Having said that, one of the justices of the Constitutional Court has interestingly expressed that a constitutional complaint could be commenced if the Constitutional Court makes a dynamic and expansive interpretation of the constitutional rights and legal standing of the petitioner as stipulated in Article 51 of the Law on Constitutional Court (Maruarar Siahaan, 2005).

This would not be the first time the Constitutional Court has extended its authority. The decision to have parliamentary candidates elected by way of a majority vote is actually a dynamic interpretation of its authority from declaring law to be unconstitutional and not binding into making law itself.

The greatest concern over a constitutional complaint is the amount of work it would create for the Constitutional Court.

Nevertheless, this could be mitigated through the adoption of either the German way of exhaustion of other legal remedies prior to filing a constitutional complaint, or more favorably, the US way of giving the court the authority to select, at its own discretion, which cases to adjudicate, preferably based on the constitutional significance of the complaint.

Indeed, the realization of the constitutional complaint in Indonesia could be a long and winding road, yet every step toward it is a worthy effort, for it is one of the pinnacles of democracy.

It is without doubt that legal research is sorely needed by Indonesia as we have witnessed more and more legislations passed with poor quality, both in its structure and its compatibility with the basic legal principles. Nevertheless, the need is not only and external one. Legal research also determine and provide a benchmark for quality of law schools producing it.

No doubt universities around the world evolved to its current state through continous and thorough research. Law faculties such as those from Oxford, Harvard, and Columbia continously produces world class legal thinker due to its rigorous research culture. The seemingly most prominent legal thinker and philosopher alive in the world today, Ronald Dworkin, is known not because of his various academic positions (let alone governmental ones), but because of his theory of the Integrity of Law which claims to pose a better understanding than the widely accepted L.H.A. Hart’s union of primary and secondary rules. Even the relatively new law school, Cardozo tries to match its century old predecessors through continously holding worldclass conferences and clinics whilst promoting its legal review.

How about FH Unpad? If I “remembered correctly” Unpad still aims to be a research university. Nevertheless, I do not see this in our beloved law faculty. I do not see a driving spirit in FH Unpad in making it an important legal research center. Of course we see exceptions here and there, but they do not define the majority. Indicators abound:

1. We do not have a steady and important Law Review (legal journal);
2. We do not often see Unpad faculty members (lecturers) having their opinions quoted compared to say, UI or UGM;
3. Other than Pak Romli, I have almost never seen an article written by Unpad faculty members published recently in major newspaper such as Kompas or Jakarta Post;
4. With an exception for the International law program (which UI is gradually making an overtaking effort), Unpad has not produced a big and important legal thought or concept after the period of Mochtar Kusumaatmadja.

Although we are making important progress in student empowerement due to extensive and intensive local and international moot courts (which I can atest by reviewing applicants for lawyers in my firm and conclude them to be at least second best if not equal to graduates from UI in terms of competitiveness as a candidate lawyer), yet I observed that this progress is not the result of collaborative effort with faculty members but more of the strong motivation of the students themselves.

The enthusiasm of the students, sadly to say, is not sufficiently matched by Unpad’s faculty members. Nevertheless, I hope the students can (and probably have) inspire the faculty members and encourage them to once again claim a leading role in Indonesia’s legal research community.

NYC, October 27, 2008
SA

Sunday, 14 september 2008

I wish I had remembered in my dreams that I was in New York. Sadly I did not. I woke up late, finding my studio-mate had already prepared to go somewhere. Its my third week in the Big Apple.

I roll around on top of my bed a bit, and when I’ve gathered more than seventy percent of my senses, I head straight to the hot shower, which I always enjoyed, therefore costing me another thirty minutes. I planned to go to the library that day. So I did.

I live in 47 street between Sixth and Seventh Avenue, Manhattan. Thats just a few steps from Times Square in case you didn’t know. How I got it? Sheer luck. I sent emails to nearly thirty Craiglist ads lookin for a room, and this one is one of only three that replied. As I stepped out of my building, there was this big crowd in Times Square, concealing the Metro underpass that I was heading for. Apparently there was Broadway on broadway, an open stage event that gathered all the Broadway theathres to perform excerpts of their show on Broadway. Well, it’s free anyways so I stopped. It was merry. There were tourists from around the world, theathers, cheers, and wrapped up with a sing-along of the all time New York favourite song, what else, Sinatra’s New York New York, my theme song for this year.

After singing and enjoying the atmosphere, I went down to take the N Train. Or was it R? Q? or W? Doesn’t matter. I stopped at Union Square -that’s where you stop to go to Cardozo- and had this nice electro rock sound in may ear. So I stopped again.

Plushgun was playing, a new band soon to release its debut album. The band was alright. Songs were upbeat and kind of nice, striking as a mixture between Coldplay and The Cure. So I stayed until their show ended. Luckily there was a break before the next band performed, so I had a reason to go to Cardozo. Went to Library, read the First Amendment book.

Its Ramadhan, so on 6 pm I went to Masjid Manhattan to pray and break my fast. I met my Afganistan friend and had a nice meal (flavoured rice with beef and veggies). As I was going back to take the subway back to campuss, a man with a black tight shirt with skeleton drawings and a red cape looking like a demonic matador running around shouting free ticket for a show at the City Hall Park, right next to the subway station. It was, kind of an attractive invitation, so, yes you got it right, I stopped again. Was I in for a treat this time.

The show (I later found out from a flier) is called Danscores by Ofelia Loret de Mola.

I can tell you that it was Post-modern art at its best. There were about 8 dancers, all having this queer moves. They made pairs and one of each pair hop on to chess tables. Each pair played, “gues what this is” game, still, with odd and bizzare moves. After that they played circus games like throwing rings at poles and inviting audience to play. But they made their own rules so the audience never wins.

A solo singing accoustic guitarist then showed up. I thought he was just another street performers wandering around to ruin the show. Turns out he was part of it! So it was a nice blend. Then they move together they moved to the back of the City Hall, dragging the audience -at that time already mounting to more than a hundred- along (as promissed in the flier). The scene moved to east side of the park next to Brooklyn bridge, where an instrumental band of 3 awaits. The band itself was peculiar. It had a bald african american guitarist and lady drummer (which I found out at the end of the show) and a piano bass. What’s a piano bass you say? It’s a piano that uses bass sound and played to produce a bassist performance. And I had thought the show ended with the band. Boy was I wrong. The unusual dancing and movement continues, sometimes in unison. Then, they bring in a well dressed old couple, talking everyday life issues like a politician, right in the middle of the dancers, still with the band playing. I may never get what the whole idea of the show is, but take my word for it, it was entertaining!

Then emerge the trumpet man which leads all of them, and the crowd, and me, to Brooklyn bridge and to an underground passage to the road below. What a show! What a day!

They were right when saying that in New York, there is always something to do, and I would like to add, even when you don’t plan to.

Sigit Ardianto
New York, 9 October 2008

Hantu yang bergentayangan di Eropa se-abad yang lalu mungkin akan kembali lagi dalam ‘wujud’ yang lebih sempurna. Ekonomi Marxist yang tidak lagi mendapat tempat yang luas dalam perbincangan ekonomi kontemporer akan mendapatkan nafas baru setelah terjadinya krisis finansial yang menimpa sang empu kapitalisme, Amerika Serikat.

Pasar modal, yang merupakan wujud paling mutakhir dari kapitalisme, yang dikomandani, Wall Street, mengalami musibah terburuk sejak 9/11, atau bahkan sejak the Great Depression. Musibah yang juga menimpa bursa Indonesia yang terpaksa mundur ke posisi September 2006 yaitu dengan indeks di kisaran 1.400-an.

Sistem ekonomi berbasis kapitalnya Adam Smith, yang mengambil wujud modern pertamanya pada VOC yang merupakan perusahaan berbasis saham pertama, tentu tidak mungkin runtuh seluruhnya. Namun, beberapa kritik atas kapitalisme dan ekonomi berbasis pasar yang pernah diajukan oleh orang2 seperti Hernan de Soto dan Anthony Giddens akan mengalami masa-masa keemasan dengan lubang besar yang ditinggalkan oleh kegagalan kapitalisme di Amerika Serikat. Pernyataan Karl Marx bahwa buruh adalah fondasi utama ekonomi seakan mendapatkan legitimasi apabila kita merunut krisis finansial yang sedang dialami dunia. Krisis ini sebagai mana dimahfumi semua pihak, berawal dari instrumen finansial busuk yang diberi rating AA oleh S&P yang bernama bernama subprime mortgage. Subprime mortgage sendiri sebenarnya adalah sejenis asset backed securities yaitu instrumen berbasis kredit dengan performa rendah, dus, asal nama subprime. Performa rendah di sini artinya buruh (istilah generik untuk seluruh pekerja upahan) yang sebenarnya belum mampu membeli rumah, atau telah menaksir terlalu tinggi kemampuannya, mendapatkan kredit dari bank-bank yang berorientasi bonus marketing. Dus, kemampuan buruh sebenarnya merupakan salah satu elemen penting yang menjadi penyebab krisis finansial ini, tentu buruh yang terbuai oleh aroma manis kapital sehingga lupa daratan.

Kembali ke Indonesia, belajar dari pengalaman buruk krisis 1997, bank-bank di Indonesia tidak lagi sembrono dalam mengucurkan kredit, sehingga musibah yang menimpa “wall street”-nya Indonesia, i.e., Bursa Efek Indonesia, sepertinya tidak akan menghantam “main street”-nya Indonesia, i.e., “kita-kita” ini. Hukuman “Tuhan” atau “Hantu” kepada kapitalisme di Indonesia sepertinya hanya akan menimpa pemilik modal yang terlalu ber-euforia atas kegemilangan bursa saham Indonesia dalam periode 4 tahun terakhir. Hukuman-Nya saat ini “tidak” menimpa kaum pekerja keras yang tetap menyimpan kehati-hatian dalam melakukan investasi hasil kerja kerasnya. Semoga saja “tidak” di sini tidak akan berubah menjadi “belum” dan kemudian “akan”.

Tentu, pengkajian ulang atas kritik Marx atas kapitalisme perlu dilakukan. Namun, memperlukan waktu yang lama untuk menemukan formula ekonomi yang tepat dan kemudian menerapkannya. Untuk itu langkah-langkah praktis untuk setidaknya memperbaiki dan meng-hedge sistem yang ada perlu dilakukan dari sekarang.

Salah satu langkah tersebut adalah memperketat regulasi serta implementasi atas regulasi di pasar modal. Telah disebutkan di atas bahwa salah satu tahapan yang menyebabkan krisis ini adalah diberikannya rating AA oleh Standard & Poors terhadap instrumen Subprime Mortgage. Rating ini, sebagaimana telah kita sadari bersama, ternyata salah. Lalu apakah S&P tidak menyadari kesalahan ini ketika memberi rating? atau kah mereka melakukan manipulasi? Saya cenderung meyakini yang kedua. Manipulasi adalah kata kunci krisis finansial ini. Oleh karenanya, Indonesia juga harus berupaya untuk memberantas segala bentuk manipulasi ini, terutama manipulasi di pasar modal yang terjadi setiap hari. Boleh jadi karena kapitalisasi pasar modal belum cukup kuat untuk meruntuhkan ekonomi nasional sebagaimana halnya AS, maka signifikansi pencegahan manipulasi di indonesia tidak sekuat di AS. Namun melihat rendahnya harga saham saat ini, bukan tidak mungkin masyarakat yang sebelumnya tidak berminat menjadi tergiur untuk berinvestasi di bursa saham. Lembaga-lembaga keuangan juga akan memperbesar portofolionya di saham. Akibatnya, kapitalisasi bursa saham akan membesar hingga mencapai taraf yang cukup berpengaruh terhadap ekonomi nasional. Ketika ini terjadi, kegagalan yang diakibatkan manipulasi pasar modal akan memiliki dampak yang jauh lebih signifikan. BEI harus bertindak, perketat pengaturan manipulasi pasar, tindak tegas pelaku manipulasi pasar.

Bisnis Indonesia, Edisi 8 April 2008

Oleh: Sigit Ardianto

Pada 25 Maret 2008, DPR telah mengesahkan rancangan Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE) dan tinggal menunggu penandatanganan oleh Presiden.
Pengesahan ini merupakan sesuatu yang menggembirakan dan telah ditunggu-tunggu oleh banyak pihak untuk keluar dari pe-ngucilan dunia internasional. Sayangnya, masyarakat terlalu terfokus pada larangan atas pornografi internet dalam UU ITE sehingga melupakan esensi dari UU ITE itu sendiri.

Sebagai sebuah produk hukum, UU ITE merupakan suatu langkah yang amat berani dengan memperkenalkan beberapa konsep hukum baru yang selama ini kerap menimbulkan polemik.

UU ITE juga merupakan terobosan hukum yang penulis anggap mampu mendorong perkembangan informasi dan teknologi (IT), dunia usaha dan bahkan kepentingan publik sehingga mampu mewujudkan fungsi hukum sebagai alat rekayasa sosial (Roscoe Pound, 1923).

Pengakuan informasi dan dokumen elektronik sebagai alat bukti hukum yang sah dalam dunia peradilan sebenarnya bukan merupakan hal yang baru, tapi juga tidak bisa disebut barang lama.

Penulis mencatat bahwa keputusan pengadilan atas kasus pergantian tampilan (deface) situs resmi KPU serta Partai Golkar termasuk segelintir keputusan yang mengakui informasi dan dokumen elektronik sebagai alat bukti.

Pengakuan ini diberikan dengan cara penafsiran diperluas terhadap salah satu alat bukti yang sah dalam Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) yaitu petunjuk.
Sayangnya, UU ITE pun mengadopsi cara pandang pengadilan dengan menyebutkan bahwa informasi dan dokumen elektronik adalah perluasan dari alat bukti yang sah sesuai dengan hukum acara, dari pada mengakui informasi dan dokumen elektronik sebagai sebuah alat bukti tersendiri.

Namun, pengakuan yang diberikan oleh UU ITE memiliki arti penting tersendiri terutama bagi Indonesia sebagai Negara yang tidak menganut prinsip stare decisis sehingga keputusan pengadilan bukan merupakan sumber hukum yang mengikat bagi hakim lainnya.

Dengan adanya UU ITE, maka se-panjang sesuai dengan UU ITE, tidak dapat lagi dikemukakan kebe-ratan atas penggunaan informasi dan dokumen elektronik yang pada hakikatnya merupakan sekumpulan angka 0 dan 1 (binary code) sebagai alat bukti yang sah.

Sudah seharusnya dunia usaha menyambut gembira atas pengaturan yang diberikan oleh UU ITE terhadap transaksi elektronik, yaitu perbuatan hukum yang dilakukan dengan menggunakan komputer, jaringan komputer atau media elektronik lainnya.

Dengan tuntutan dunia usaha yang kian meningkat sehingga membutuhkan efisiensi waktu semaksimal mungkin, transaksi elektronik adalah solusi yang amat dibutuhkan.
Namun, selama ini masih besar sekali keraguan para pelaku bisnis yang ingin menyelesaikan transaksi mereka secara elektronik.

Padahal, hukum perdata kita menganut asas konsensualisme yang menyatakan bahwa perikatan terjadi setelah tercapainya kesepakatan, dan kesepakatan di sini tidak harus tercapai dalam bentuk tertulis, melainkan dapat terjadi secara lisan.
Keraguan terbesar para pelaku bisnis adalah apakah transaksi yang mereka selesaikan secara elektronik telah sah sehingga segala hal yang mereka lakukan berdasarkan transaksi tersebut tidak akan menjadi sia-sia dan bahkan merugikan secara finansial.
Dengan pengakuan UU ITE bahwa transaksi elektronik yang dituangkan ke dalam Kontrak Elektronik mengikat para pihak, maka keraguan tersebut telah sirna.
Sambutan atas UU ITE ini juga seharusnya lebih luas lagi yaitu dari pemerintah dengan pengakuan bahwa penyelenggaraan Transaksi Elektronik dapat dilakukan dalam lingkup publik ataupun privat.

Dengan pengakuan ini, seharusnya dapat ditafsirkan bahwa pejabat pemerintahan dapat melakukan berbagai tugas dan kewenangannya secara elektronik.
Misalnya, seorang gubernur dapat memberikan arahan seketika kepada seluruh kepala desa dengan mengi-rimkan surat elektronik tanpa harus menunggu pengiriman fisik surat keputusan atau surat edaran yang apabila dilakukan di daerah-daerah pedalaman atau kepulauan akan memakan waktu yang tidak sedikit. Betapa hal ini akan sangat bermanfaat dalam keadaan-keadaan mendesak seperti bencana alam.

Perlindungan publik

Manfaat terbesar dari UU ITE adalah yang diberikannya kepada publik. Keberpihakan UU ITE terhadap kepentingan publik terlihat dari batang tubuh UU ITE yang di-mulai dengan menyatakan bahwa UU ITE juga berlaku untuk setiap orang yang melakukan perbuatan hukum di luar wilayah hukum Indonesia yang memiliki akibat hukum di wilayah hukum Indonesia dan merugikan kepentingan Indonesia.
Sifat extra territorial dari UU ITE ini memungkinkan pelanggar-pelanggar hukum yang melakukan aksi kriminal maya (cyber crime) di negara lain untuk dihukum berdasarkan hukum Indonesia.

Kontrol sosial yang diberikan oleh UU ITE juga terlihat dari pelarangan atas distribusi informasi atau dokumen elektronik yang memiliki muatan penghinaan atau pencemaran nama baik, atau yang dapat menimbulkan rasa kebencian kepada kelompok tertentu berdasarkan SARA.

Terlepas dari beberapa kekurangan teknis seperti pemuatan pelarangan pada judul bab dan kemungkinan penafsiran yang luas terhadap istilah-istilah yang digunakan, UU ITE tetap harus diberikan apresiasi yang tinggi serta didorong penerapannya secara luas karena manfaat serta potensi yang dimilikinya bagi perkembangan Indonesia.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/11/25/religious-freedom-not-without-limits.html

Sigit Ardianto

Indonesia has a unique position in today’s civilization. As a country with the largest Moslem population in the world — encompassing 86.1 percent of the total Indonesian population of more than 230 million — Indonesia is also the third largest democratic country in the world after India and the United States.

The absence of any reference to Islam in the 1945 Constitution shows that Indonesia is open to all religions besides Islam. This is emphasized by Article 29 (2) of the 1945 Constitution which states that, “The state guarantees each and every citizen the freedom of religion and of worship in accordance with his religion and belief”, which is reinforced with Article 28E paragraph (1 ). This religious freedom clause is symmetrical with the guarantee given by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which stipulates, among others, the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”

In the context of religious freedom in the United States, the First Amendment means that not only is its government prohibited from limiting religious freedom, it is also forbidden to endorse a particular religion. Prohibition in the sentence, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion …” is better known as the nonestablishment principle. This clause is what distinguishes Indonesia from the United States, i.e., Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution does not prohibit its government from supporting a particular religion. However, this provision also places Indonesia in between secular and theocracy poles, with the pendulum swinging still.

Disputes arise when we are required to provide limits on the extent to which religious freedom is guaranteed. When the Ahmadiyah case surfaced, the question which had been limited to academia and liberal activists spread to all levels of society.

One of the central teachings of the Ahmadiyah (mainstream) is a recognition of Mirza Gulam Ahmad as a prophet (irrespective of their defense on this). These teachings are considered contrary to the teachings of Islam in which the Prophet Mohammed is the last prophet. Ahmadiyah’s claim therefore caused restlessness in the society, and for some people, constituted an insult to Islam because (as if) it does not recognize Mohammed as the last prophet.

In response to this issue, which has escalated into horizontal conflicts in some regions — including Jakarta — the government (finally) intervened and issued the Ahmadiyah Joint Decree, but the decree itself shows that the government bowed to negative public opinions about Ahmadiyah.

The Ahmadiyah Joint Decree raised the question as to whether or not there is a limit to a guarantee of religious freedom. The answer will only be known when we look at an extreme example. For example, many countries will not protect religious teachings which include human sacrifice or invite its followers to commit suicide.

Restrictions on freedom of religion have actually been given in the 1945 Constitution, Article 28J Paragraph (2), which states, “In exercising their rights and freedom, every person is subject to limitation set by law with the purpose of solely to guarantee the recognition and respect over the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the demands of justice in accordance with morality, religious values, security and public order in a democratic society.”

Following the seemingly prevailing argument on limitations, the defenders of religious freedom can also argue that the government should not issue policies that limit the rights of particular religious groups to protect the religious feelings of others (although a majority) as in the case of the Ahmadiyah Joint Decree.

However, as mentioned above, our current Constitution does not prohibit the government from making a policy that favors or supports a particular religion that may have a side effect of “limiting” other religions or beliefs, as shown by the Ahmadiyah Joint Decree.

Constitutionally, religious freedom in Indonesia can be restricted.