Peaceful “Thursday Actions” by the victims of past human rights violations have entered their 65th week. Not much has been achieved yet.

THE sun was scorching as Maria Catarina Sumarsih opened a black umbrella across from the State Palace on Thursday last week. The mother of Bernardus Realino Norma Irmawan—who died during the 1998 Semanggi incident—along with 32 of her colleagues wore black shirts. There was no thundering of speeches as is usual at a demonstration. Their hopes were related through banners and umbrellas upon which were written a variety of demands calling for investigations in to past human rights violations.

Every Thursday, members of the Solidarity Network for Victims and Families of Victims (JSKKK) protest at the State Palace to demand the fulfillment of a promise by the President and to remind the public that cases of past human rights violations have not yet been resolved. “The Thursday Actions will stop when there are human rights trials,” said Sumarsih. In addition to bringing banners, they also display photographs of people who have disappeared and victims of the 1965 massacre.

The participants at the actions reflect the diversity of the JSKKK’s membership. On Thursday last week, there were 33 people at the protest. Aside from Sumarsih there was also Suciwati (the widow of the late Munir), Nurlaila (a victims of the Melawai 56 junior high school case), Darwin (a victim of the May 1998 riots), along with Bejo Untung, Tumiso and Susmadja (victims of the 1965 incident). Solidarity also came from the chair of the Humanitarian Volunteers Network, Romo Sandyawan and Christina Widiantarti from the Jakarta Residents Forum.

The action started at 4pm. After an hour, they closed their umbrellas and formed a circle. After a silent protest, there was a session for reflection in which several people were asked to speak on matters related to human rights. Romo Sandyawan was asked to give a speech. He spoke about the refusal of retired military officers to appear before the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and touched on the recent price increase in basic commodities.

Nurlaila was also asked to offer a reflection, but did not move from where she was sitting. “I’m not ready yet,” she said. She came to the event in solidarity with victims of despotism. In fact she has come to the Thursday Actions on five occasions.

l l l

THE Thursday Actions were inspired by movements of victims of human rights violations and their families in various parts of the world. According to Sumarsih, the idea to hold the actionsemerged over a period of several discussions. One of these was a meeting between JSKKK and the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) in late 2006. At the time, Kontras Deputy Coordinator Haris Azhar gave examples of activities that could be held to support solidarity actions.

A Korean women’s movement for example, is demanding justice in the jugun ianfu case (sex slaves during the Japanese occupation). Wearing white clothing, every Wednesday, they hold a demonstration in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. Another example is the movement of Argentinian women whose children were abducted by the Argentine military junta led by Gen. Fidela.

In Indonesia, the peaceful action are held on Thursdays for practical considerations. According to Sumarsih, Monday was not chosen because JSKKK members are busy with personal matters. On Tuesday there are routine meetings on the Munir case. And on Wednesdays, Kontras has regular discussions. Friday was not chosen because there is not enough time. So they decided, “Let’s meet Thursdays.”

It was during a meeting on January 12, 2007 that it was agreed that the demonstrators would wear black clothing and carry black umbrellas. The color was chosen as a symbol of fortitude. “We agreed, even if there were only three participants, the action would still go on,” said Sumarsih. Generally however, the number of participants is between 20-80 people. So, “There haven’t ever been only three people.” The first Thursday Action was held on January 18, 2007 and as of last week they have organized a total of 65 Thursday Actions.

Not all of the Thursday Actions have proceeded smoothly. During the first action on January 18, 2007, they were blocked by police. But they refused to back down even though the police asked them to disband. On August 16, 2007, police asked them to cancel the action because a dress rehearsal for the August 17 Independence Day celebrations was being held.

On September 6 last year, a Thursday Action was held to coincide with a visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the State Palace. According to Kontras Impunity Division Head Yati Andriyani, police had in fact phoned them beforehand to ask that the action be cancelled. But the request was ignored. As a consequence, moments before Putin’s entourage approached the State Palace, there was a scuffle with police and protesters when they tried to confiscate their umbrellas. “At the time the victims linked arms so the police’s efforts were unsuccessful,” said Yati.

A very tense Thursday Action took place on April 17 this year. Prior to the action, police notified them of a new policy banning demonstrations being held too close to the State Palace. JSKKK paid no heed to the warning. As a result, when demonstrators arrived at the location, their usual spot was filled with 14 police cars. Undaunted, the protesters decided to sit in front of the cars. After negotiations, the police cars were moved off and the action went ahead as usual. “The constancy, seriousness and sincerity crushed the security personnel’s [resolve],” said Yati.

At almost every Thursday Action they never fail to send a letter to the President. Out of scores of such letters, State Secretary Hatta Rajasa has only responded once. In a letter dated September 28, 2007, Hatta Rajasa said that the letter had been sent to the Attorney General in order to respond to the issues conveyed by the demonstrators.

On March 26 this year, JSKKK was received by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. At the time the President promised to assist them in resolving cases of human rights violations. “but there has been no evidence of this,” said Sumarsih. Presidential Spokesperson Andi Mallarangeng says that the President’s commitment to human rights has already been made clear. “Everything has its procedures,” said Andi.

But instead of the government proving its commitment, on April 1 four human rights violation case dossiers resulting from an investigation by Komnas HAM were returned by the Attorney General. The four cases were the Trisakti, Semanggi I and Semanggi II shootings, the 1998 abduction of political activists, the May 1998 riots and the Wamena-Wasior in Papua.

l l l

ACCORDING to the head of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances, Mugiyanto, the Thursday Actions resemble those carried out by the group Las Madres Plaza de Mayo (the Mothers of the May Plaza), who hold weekly Thursday rallies in downtown Buenos Aires. In Argentina, the women, who wear white scarves walk around a monument in front of the Casa Rosando Presidential Palace. The participants are also not many, only around 50 people. Their numbers explode only at certain times, such as in the last week of May, which has been consecrated since the 1980 as Anti-Involuntary Disappearance Week.

Argentina’s political atmosphere at the time was extremely repressive—the press was gagged and the opposition muzzled. According to a report by the Argentina Commission for Missing Persons, over the period in when Gen. Fidel ruled (1976-1983), as many as 8,000 people fell victim to the dirty war. Reportedly, they were thrown into the Atlantic Ocean. “Actions held like these are very symbolic,” said Mugiyanto, who is also the head of the Indonesian Association of the Families of Missing Persons.

For Mugiyanto, what distinguishes the Las Madres Plaza de Mayo and the Thursday Actions is the political situation. The Las Madres movement was carried out as a creative way of overcoming repression, while the Thursday Actions in Indonesia are a form of symbolic action after other efforts to push for the resolution of human rights cases have met a dead end. “The Thursday Actions are an initiative to fight against forgetting the past,” said Mugiyanto.

The consistent determination of the Las Madres Plaza de Mayo had a huge impact on the struggle against involuntary disappearances around the world. The movement inspired other generations—not just in Latin America—but all over the world. The politics of the Argentinian mothers also encouraged the birth of the Convention Against Forced Disappearances, which was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly on December 19, 2006. Indonesia, says Mugiyanto, has yet to sign, let alone ratify this convention. “That is what we are pushing for,” he said.

Abdul Manan, Shinta Eka P.

Tempo Magazine, No. 37/VIII/May 13-19, 2008

Aksi diam Kamisan yang digelar keluarga korban pelanggaran hak asasi manusia memasuki pekan ke-65. Belum banyak hasilnya.

MATAHARI menyengat ketika Maria Catarina Sumarsih membuka payung hitam di seberang Istana Negara, Kamis pekan lalu. Ibunda Bernardus Realino Norma Irmawan—korban tewas peristiwa Semanggi 1998—bersama 32 koleganya mengenakan baju hitam. Tak ada gemuruh orasi seperti layaknya demonstrasi. Aspirasi diungkapkan melalui spanduk dan payung yang bertulisan aneka tuntutan pengusutan kasus pelanggaran hak asasi.

Setiap Kamis, anggota Jaringan Solidaritas Korban dan Keluarga Korban ini menagih janji Presiden dan mengingatkan publik soal belum tuntasnya kasus pelanggaran hak asasi masa lalu. ”Aksi Kamisan akan berhenti kalau ada pengadilan hak asasi manusia,” kata Sumarsih. Selain mengusung spanduk, mereka memajang foto-foto orang hilang dan keluarga korban pembunuhan 1965.

Peserta aksi ini mencerminkan keberagaman anggota Jaringan. Kamis pekan lalu, ada 33 orang yang datang. Ada Suciwati, janda almarhum Munir; Nurlaila (korban kasus Sekolah Menengah Pertama 56 Melawai); Sumarsih (keluarga korban insiden Semanggi); Darwin (korban kerusuhan Mei); serta Bejo Untung, Tumiso, Susmadja (korban 1965). Selain itu, solidaritas datang dari Ketua Jaringan Relawan Kemanusiaan Romo Sandyawan dan Christina Widi-antarti dari Forum Warga Kota Jakarta.

Aksi dimulai pukul 16.00 WIB. Setelah satu jam, mereka melipat payung dan membuat lingkaran. Seusai aksi diam, ada sesi refleksi: beberapa orang diminta bicara apa saja tentang isu hak asasi manusia. Romo Sandyawan didapuk untuk berpidato. Ia bicara soal penolakan para purnawirawan menghadiri undangan Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia, selain menyinggung soal kenaikan harga bahan kebutuhan pokok.

Nurlaila sempat didaulat untuk memberikan refleksi. Tapi ia tak beranjak dari tempat duduknya. ”Saya belum siap,” katanya. Ia datang dalam acara ini sebagai bentuk solidaritas sesama korban kesewenang-wenangan. Telah lima kali ia datang dalam demo Kamisan ini. ”Saya kan pengacara, pengangguran banyak acara,” kata ibu rumah tangga ini terkekeh.

l l l

DEMO Kamisan terinspirasi oleh gerakan perlawanan korban pelanggaran hak asasi manusia dan keluarganya di berbagai belahan dunia. Menurut Sumarsih, ide membuat aksi ini muncul melalui beberapa diskusi. Salah satunya adalah pertemuan Jaringan dengan Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan akhir 2006. Saat itu Wakil Koordinator Komisi untuk Orang Hilang Haris Azhar memberikan sejumlah contoh kegiatan yang bisa dilakukan untuk menggalang aksi solidaritas.

Gerakan perempuan Korea, yang menuntut keadilan dalam kasus jugun ianfu, misalnya. Dengan mengenakan pakaian putih, setiap Rabu, mereka menggelar demonstrasi di depan Kedutaan Besar Jepang di Seoul. Contoh lain, gerakan perempuan Argentina yang anaknya diculik dan dihilangkan oleh junta militer Argentina pimpinan Jenderal Fidela.

Di Indonesia, aksi diam itu dilakukan pada Kamis karena pertimbangan praktis. Menurut Sumarsih, Senin tak dipilih karena anggota Jaringan punya kesibukan sendiri-sendiri. Selasa ada agenda rutin sidang kasus Munir. Rabu, Komisi untuk Orang Hilang punya agenda diskusi rutin. ”Ketemulah Kamis.” Jumat tidak dipilih karena waktunya pendek.

Dalam pertemuan 12 Januari 2007 itu juga disepakati para demonstran mengenakan busana hitam-hitam plus menenteng payung hitam. Warna ini dipilih sebagai simbol keteguhan. ”Kami sepakat, kalaupun pesertanya cuma tiga orang, aksi akan tetap jalan,” kata Sumarsih. Umumnya peserta demo ini berkisar 20 sampai 80 orang. Jadi, ”Belum pernah sampai cuma tiga orang.” Aksi Kamisan pertama dilakukan 18 Januari 2007, dan hingga pekan lalu sudah 65 Kamis yang mereka lalui.

Tak semua demo Kamisan berjalan mulus. Pada aksi pertama, 18 Januari 2007, mereka dihadang polisi. Tapi mereka tak mundur, meski polisi meminta mereka bubar. Pada Kamisan 16 Agustus 2007, polisi juga meminta aksi dibatalkan karena ada geladi bersih peringatan tujuh belasan.

Pada 6 September tahun lalu, acara Kamisan bersamaan dengan kedatangan Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin ke Istana Negara. Menurut Kepala Divisi Impunitas dan Pemenuhan Hak Korban Komisi untuk Orang Hilang Yati Andriyani, sebelumnya memang ada polisi yang menelpon meminta aksi dibatalkan. Tapi permintaan ini diabaikan. Akibatnya, sesaat sebelum rombongan Putin mendekati Istana Negara, terjadi tarik-menarik payung antara massa dan polisi. ”Saat itu korban bergandengan tangan sehingga upaya polisi tak berhasil,” kata Yati.

Kamisan yang sangat menegangkan terjadi 17 April lalu. Sebelum aksi itu terjadi, polisi sempat memberitahukan kebijakan baru tentang larangan melakukan demonstrasi yang terlalu dekat dengan Istana Negara. Jaringan tak mempedulikan peringatan itu. Walhasil, saat pendemo tiba di lokasi, tempat demo sudah diisi 14 mobil polisi. Massa tak gentar dan memilih duduk di depan mobil polisi. Setelah melalui negosiasi, mobil polisi ini pun berlalu dan aksi bisa jalan terus. ”Konsistensi, kesungguhan, dan ketulusan itu juga meluluhkan aparat keamanan,” kata Yati.

Hampir pada setiap aksi Kamisan mereka juga tak lupa mengirimkan surat kepada Presiden. Dari puluhan surat itu, Menteri-Sekretaris Negara Hatta Rajasa baru sekali memberikan balasan. Dalam surat tertanggal 28 September 2007, Hatta Rajasa menyampaikan telah berkirim surat kepada Kejaksaan Agung agar menampung permasalahan yang disampaikan para demonstran. Pada 26 Maret 2008, Jaringan juga diterima Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Saat itu Presiden berjanji akan membantu penuntasan kasus hak asasi manusia. ”Ternyata tidak ada buktinya,” ujar Sumarsih. Juru bicara Presiden, Andi Mallarangeng, mengatakan komitmen Presiden soal pelanggaran hak asasi manusia sudah jelas. ”Semua ada aturannya,” kata Andi.

Alih-alih pemerintah memberi bukti, 1 April lalu, empat berkas kasus pelanggaran hak asasi hasil penyelidikan Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia dikembalikan oleh Kejaksaan Agung. Keempatnya adalah berkas kasus Trisakti, Semanggi I, dan Semanggi II; penghilangan orang secara paksa; kerusuhan Mei; dan kasus Wamena-Wasior.

l l l

MENURUT Ketua Federasi Organisasi Keluarga Orang Hilang Asia (AFAD) Mugiyanto, apa yang dilakukan Kamisan ini mirip dengan Las Madres Plaza de Mayo (Ibu-ibu Plaza Mei). Di Argentina, perempuan-perempuan itu menggunakan scarf putih berjalan mengitari sebuah tugu di depan Istana Kepresidenan Casa Rosando. Pesertanya juga tak banyak: sekitar 50 orang. Jumlahnya membeludak hanya pada saat tertentu, seperti pekan terakhir Mei, yang memang ditahbiskan sejak 1980 sebagai Pekan Anti-Penghilangan Orang Secara Paksa.

Suasana Argentina saat itu juga sangat represif: pers dibungkam, oposisi diberangus. Semasa Jenderal Fidel berkuasa (1976-1983), menurut laporan Komisi Orang Hilang Argentina, korban perang kotor diperkirakan 8.000 orang. Kabarnya mereka dibuang ke Laut Atlantik. ”Aksi yang dilakukan ini sangat simbolis,” kata Mugiyanto, Ketua Ikatan Orang Hilang Indonesia.

Bagi Mugiyanto, yang membedakan Las Madres Plaza de Mayo dengan Kamisan adalah situasi politiknya. Gerakan Las Madres itu dilakukan sebagai cara kreatif mengatasi represi, sedangkan aksi Kamisan di Indonesia sebagai bentuk aksi simbolis setelah upaya lain untuk mendorong penuntasan kasus hak asasi menemui jalan buntu. ”Aksi Kamisan ini sebagai inisiatif melawan lupa,” ujar Mugiyanto.

Konsistensi Las Madres Plaza de Mayo membawa dampak besar bagi perjuangan orang-orang hilang di dunia. Gerakan itu menginspirasi gerakan lain tak hanya di Amerika Latin, tapi juga dunia. Politik ibu-ibu Argentina itu juga yang mendorong lahirnya Konvensi Anti-Penghilangan Orang Secara Paksa, yang disahkan dalam Majelis Sidang Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa 19 Desember 2006. Indonesia, kata Mugiyanto, belum meneken, apalagi meratifikasi, konvensi tersebut. ”Itulah yang akan kami dorong,” ujarnya.

Abdul Manan, Shinta Eka P.

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 12/XXXVII/12 - 18 Mei 2008

Silang kata penyelesaian kasus pelanggaran hak asasi tak kunjung usai. Menunggu dukungan Istana.

SUSAH benar perjalanan empat berkas penyelidikan kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia itu. Berbilang tahun ia mondar-mandir di sekitar Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia di kawasan Menteng, Jakarta Pusat, dan gedung Kejaksaan Agung di Jakarta Selatan.

Awal April lalu, berkas itu tercecer. Dibawa dalam selusin kardus tanpa segel, berkas diserahkan kejaksaan ke satuan pengamanan Komisi. Lazimnya, berkas seperti ini diserahkan resmi ke anggota Komisi. ”Isinya nama-nama yang diduga menjadi pelaku serta saksi pelanggaran hak asasi dan harus dilindungi,” kata Yosep Adi Prasetyo, anggota Komisi.

Ada empat kasus dalam berkas itu: kasus Trisakti dan Semanggi I-II, penculikan 1997/1998, kerusuhan Mei 1998, dan penembakan Wamena-Wasior. Kedua institusi berbeda pendapat soal kelengkapan berkas. Komisi menganggap berkas sudah lengkap sehingga tak ada alasan kejaksaan mengembalikannya.

Menurut Jonny Simanjuntak, anggota Komisi, pekan lalu mereka mengirim tiga surat ke kejaksaan. Surat itu menegaskan semua berkas sudah lengkap. Surat dikirim karena sudah tiga kali berkas kasus Trisakti dan Semanggi dikirim balik ke Komisi. Adapun kasus Wamena-Wasior sekali bolak-balik.

Juru bicara Kejaksaan Agung, B.D. Nainggolan, menjelaskan berkas kasus Trisakti dikembalikan karena sejumlah pelakunya sudah diadili di pengadilan militer. Hukum tak memungkinkan pelaku diadili dua kali dalam perkara yang sama.

Untuk kasus orang hilang dan kerusuhan Mei, menurut Nainggolan, pengadilan ad hoc hak asasi manusia harus dibentuk lebih dulu. Adapun untuk kasus Wamena-Wasior, kejaksaan meminta Komisi memperbaiki berkas penyelidikan. ”Itu dua kasus berbeda sehingga harus jadi dua berkas,” katanya.

Marwan Effendy, Jaksa Agung Muda Tindak Pidana Khusus, menyatakan sulit menyidik kasus-kasus itu sebelum ada pengadilan ad hoc. Misalnya, soal penahanan para tersangka yang memerlukan izin pengadilan.

Dalam suratnya ke kejaksaan, Komisi mengatakan tugas mereka sebagai penyelidik sudah selesai. Mereka meminta kejaksaan melanjutkan ke tahap penyidikan. ”Kalau bukti kurang, tugas penyidik melengkapinya,” demikian tertulis dalam surat 29 April 2008 itu.

Pada kasus Mei dan penculikan, Komisi menganggap keharusan pembentukan pengadilan ad hoc tak disebutkan dalam Undang-Undang Hak Asasi Manusia. Komisi juga mengutip keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi: rekomendasi Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat bisa diberikan dengan mempertimbangkan penyelidikan Komisi Hak Asasi dan penyidikan Kejaksaan Agung. Rekomendasi Dewan merupakan syarat pembentukan pengadilan ad hoc.

Jonny Simanjuntak mengatakan Kejaksaan Agung kini bertugas melaksanakan penyidikan. ”Kalau menilai tak ada pelanggaran hak asasi berat, silahkan keluarkan surat perintah penghentian penyidikan,” katanya.

Yosep Adi Prasetyo menilai kasus ini seperti bola panas yang ditolak Kejaksaan Agung. Asmara Nababan, mantan anggota Komisi, menganggap ruwetnya penanganan kasus ini akibat tak adanya kemauan politik pemerintah. Jaksa Marwan Effendy menepis tudingan itu.

Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan pernah membawa penanganan kasus-kasus itu ke Istana, pada saat aktivisnya bertemu dengan Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, 25 Maret lalu. Menurut Haris Azhar, wakil koordinator komisi tersebut, Presiden terkesan memiliki kemauan politik. ”Tapi yang penting tindak lanjutnya,” ia menambahkan.

Namun, menurut Asmara, sinyal dukungan Istana terhadap kasus ini belum terlihat. ”Kalaupun ada, mungkin kuning,” katanya. ”Sinyal kuning bisa berubah menjadi hijau atau merah.” Juru bicara presiden, Andi Mallarangen menampik tidak adanya dukungan politik. ”Komitmen presiden untuk menuntaskan kasus HAM jelas,” katanya.

Abdul Manan, Rini Kustiani

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 11/XXXVII/05 - 11 Mei 2008

The government asks Ahmadiyah followers to discontinue their activities. It is felt that this decision violates the Constitution.

THE advice dispensed during the imam’s sermon was for the members of the congregation to exemplify the behavior and attitude of the Prophet Muhammad. This advice made Siti, a member of the congregation at the Friday prayer in Manis Lor, Jalaksana district, Kuningan, West Java, cry. “We have the same Prophet, Muhammad, but why have we been outlawed,” she lamented while walking back to her home.

In Manis Lor, a village where the majority of residents are followers of the Ahmadiyah movement, the Friday congregational prayers are conducted in the homes of residents. Their mosque was sealed shut by the local government at the end of last year, after it was damaged en masse by the surrounding Muslim community. In this place, women also join the weekly service.

The reason for Siti’s sorrow, and that of other Ahmadiyah followers, was the recommendation of the Coordination Agency to Oversee People’s Beliefs. On Wednesday last week, this government-formed body asked the follower of this group—which has been in Indonesia since 1925—to desist from their activities. If not, the group, which was formed based on a decision of the Minister of Justice in 1955, will be disbanded.

This body is led by the Attorney General, with members representing the police, military, and officials from the Department of Home Affairs, Department of Culture, Department of Religious Affairs, and the State Intelligence Agency. Last Wednesday’s meeting was an evaluation of how well the Ahmadiyah followed its 12-point statement, which was made upon the insistence of a number of Islamic organizations and the Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI), which was made three months ago.

Last January, Ahmadiyah leaders emphasized that, among other things, Muhammad is the final Prophet, while Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was only a teacher and founder of the Ahmadiyah. Meanwhile, the Tadzkirah book was not claimed to be a sacred text. The Coordination Agency gave the Ahmadiyah followers three months to act according to their statement. They observed the activities of their congregations in 33 regencies and 55 communities, and met with 227 Ahmadiyah followers.

The results were disappointing. According to Whisnu Broto, Deputy Attorney General for Intelligence, who was the Coordination Agency’s manager, Ahmadiyah followers still consider Mirza a prophet and the Tadzkirah a divine text. The congregation also considers their prayers to be invalid if they take someone outside of the Ahmadiyah as their imam or prayer leader. This is why Atho Muzahir, chairman of the team formed by the Coordination Agency, feels that the Ahmadiyah has deviated from the teachings of Islam.

The body’s recommendation was unanimous. “Everyone agreed,” said Whisnu. When the recommendation was made, the police protected Ahmadiyah areas. In Manis Lor, a platoon of police was standing by. Over 3,000 of the village’s 4,500 residents are Ahmadiyah followers. “We are uneasy. We don’t know what will happen to us,” said Sarta, 60, a resident of the village.

Violence took place in Singaparna, Tasikmalaya, West Java. Here, the Ahmadiyah mosque was attacked by hundreds of people. According to Depi Suryanadin, the group’s spokesman, the attack was on Friday afternoon last week. The attackers threw stones and sticks. Glass and tiles were broken.

There were no victims because the mosque was empty when it was attacked. The mosque, which can accommodate 100 people, is still used for worship. However, Ahmadiyah followers only use it for the required five daily prayers. Other activities, such as religious study sessions, have been stopped. This was done to avoid uncontrollable mass protest, such as has repeatedly taken place at their communities in Kampus Parung, Manis Lor, and Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara.

Those standing up for the Ahmadiyah regret the interference of the government as done through the Coordination Agency’s recommendation. “Faith cannot be put on trial. This is not in the spirit of the Constitution,” said Jan Husein Lamady, head of the Ahmadiyah advocacy team. “The state cannot and may not interfere in matters of individual decision,” said Rusdi Marpaung, Director of the Imparsial NGO. He urged that the Coordination Agency be disbanded because it does not fit with the times.

Abdul Manan, Ivansyah, Rini Kustiani

Tempo Magazine, No. 34/VIII/22-28 April, 2008

Pemerintah meminta pengikut Ahmadiyah menghentikan aktivitas mereka. Keputusan ini dinilai melanggar konstitusi.

SANG khatib berpesan dari atas mimbar agar jemaah meneladankan sikap dan perilaku Nabi Muhammad. Nasihat itu membuat Siti, anggota jemaah salat Jumat di Manis Lor, Kecamatan Jalaksana, Kuningan, Jawa Barat, menitikkan air mata. ”Nabi kami sama, Muhammad, tapi kenapa kami dilarang,” ia mengeluh saat berjalan menuju rumahnya.

Di Manis Lor, desa dengan mayoritas penduduk pengikut gerakan Ahmadiyah, salat Jumat dilakukan di rumah-rumah penduduk. Masjid mereka disegel pemerintah setempat, akhir tahun lalu, setelah diamuk dan diobrak-abrik umat muslim sekitarnya. Di sini, pe-rempuan pun ikut melakukan salat.

Pangkal kesedihan Siti, dan pengikut Ahmadiyah lainnya, ialah rekomendasi Badan Koordinasi Pengawasan Aliran Kepercayaan Masyarakat. Rabu pekan lalu, badan bentukan pemerintah ini meminta pengikut kelompok yang masuk Indonesia sejak 1925 itu menghentikan kegiatannya. Jika tidak, kelompok yang terbentuk berdasarkan keputusan Menteri Kehakiman pada 1955 itu akan dibubarkan.

Badan ini dipimpin Jaksa Agung, dengan anggota perwakilan dari polisi, tentara, serta aparat Departemen Dalam Negeri, Departemen Kebudayaan, Departemen Agama, dan Badan Intelijen Negara. Rapat Rabu pekan lalu membahas hasil evaluasi ihwal sejauh mana ”ketaatan” Ahmadiyah terhadap 12 butir pernyataan kelompok itu, yang dibikin atas desakan sejumlah organisasi Islam dan Majelis Ulama Indonesia, yang dibuat tiga bulan lalu.

Januari lalu, pemimpin Ahmadiyah antara lain menegaskan bahwa Muhammad adalah nabi penutup, sementara Mirza Ghulam Ahmad hanya seorang guru dan pendiri Ahmadiyah. Sedangkan buku Tadzkirah bukan kitab suci. Badan Koordinasi memberikan waktu tiga bulan kepada pengikut Ahmadiyah untuk menjalankan pernyataan itu. Mereka memantau aktivitas jemaah di 33 kabupaten dan 55 komunitas serta bertemu dengan 227 pengikut Ahmadiyah.

Hasilnya mengecewakan. Menurut Whisnu Broto, Jaksa Agung Muda Intelijen yang merupakan ketua harian Badan Koordinasi, warga Ahmadiyah ternyata masih menganggap Mirza sebagai nabi dan Tadzkirah sebagai kitab suci. Jemaahnya pun menganggap batal jika bermakmum salat kepada orang di luar pengikut Ahmadiyah. Karena itulah Atho Muzahir, ketua tim bentukan Badan Koordinasi, menilai Ahmadiyah menyimpang dari ajaran Islam.

Rekomendasi badan itu pun diputuskan secara bulat. ”Semua sepakat,” kata Whisnu. Begitu keluar rekomendasi ini, perkampungan Ahmadiyah dijaga polisi. Di Manis Lor, sepeleton polisi bersiaga. Tiga ribu lebih dari 4.500 penduduk desa itu pengikut Ahmadiyah. ”Kami resah, hendak diapakan kami ini,” kata Sarta, 60 tahun, penduduk desa itu.

Tapi kekerasan terjadi di Singaparna, Tasikmalaya, Jawa Barat. Di sini, masjid Ahmadiyah diserang ratusan orang. Menurut Depi Suryanadin, juru dakwah kelompok itu, penyerangan dilakukan Jumat sore pekan lalu. Penyerang melempar batu dan tongkat. Kaca-kaca dan genting pecah.

Tidak ada korban luka karena masjid kosong saat diserang. Masjid berkapasitas 100 orang itu masih digunakan untuk beribadah. Namun pengikut Ahmadiyah hanya menggunakannya untuk salat wajib, lima kali sehari. Kegiatan lain, seperti pengajian, dihentikan. Ini dilakukan untuk mencegah tindakan massa yang anarkistis, sebagaimana terjadi berulang kali di basis jemaah di Kampus Parung, Manis Lor, hingga di Mataram, Nusa Tenggara Barat.

Para pembela Ahmadiyah menyesalkan campur tangan pemerintah melalui rekomendasi Badan Koordinasi. ”Keyakinan tak bisa diadili. Ini tak sesuai dengan spirit konstitusi,” kata Jan Husein Lamady, ketua tim advokasi Ahmadiyah. ”Negara tidak bisa dan tidak boleh mencampuri pilihan yang bersifat individual,” kata Rusdi Marpaung, direktur organisasi nonpemerintah Imparsial. Ia mendesak Badan Koordinasi dibubarkan karena tak sesuai dengan semangat zaman.

Abdul Manan, Ivansyah, Rini Kustiani

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 37/IX/21 - 27 April 2008

Suspected of taking a bribe for a forestry project, DPR member Al-Amin Nur Nasution is arrested by police. But the Forestry Minister defends the project.

AT 1am on Wednesday last week two men met in the lobby of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in the Mega Kuningan area, South Jakarta. One was Al-Amin Nasution, a member of the House of Representatives (DPR) of the Forestry and Agriculture Commission, while the other was Azirwan, Regional Secretary of Bintan regency, Riau Islands. Both were seriously engaged in conversation.

They were unaware of the fact that eight Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigating officers were intently spying on both of them.

After chatting in the lobby for about half an hour, Amin and Azirwan quickly entered the elevator to go up to the first floor and disappeared.

The investigators were at first upset about losing their quarry. Luckily a moment later it was known that the two had entered a room next to a cafe. Not a bedroom but a rented conference room.

Already waiting in the room were Azirwan’s assistant and a pretty young lady who was later identified as Eifel. She was wearing a brown sweater and a tight pair of black jeans. The conversation continued there.

At 2am, the eight investigating officers stormed the conference room. The room occupants were shocked. “What’s going on?” asked Amin as quoted by a Tempo source.

An investigator replied, “We’re from the KPK. You are asked to come with us to the office. Here’s your arrest warrant.” After reading the warrant, Amin and the other three persons gave in and were rounded up by the investigating officers.

Rp4 million in cash was confiscated from Amin, and the investigators also confiscated S$33,000 (about Rp220 million) from the room.

While they were being led to the car, another investigator went through Amin’s car parked in the hotel’s basement and found Rp67 million in cash.

On that particular morning the four persons and the evidence were taken to the KPK office not far from the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. The investigators also confiscated the black BMW belonging to Amin as evidence.

The investigators suspect that the money was given for the successful conversion of the Bunyu protected forest area in Riau into part of the capital city of the Bintan Regency. The KPK is seriously looking into the facts to verify the accuracy of the suspicion.

Amin is temporarily placed in the Jakarta Metro Police detention house while Azirwan in the South Jakarta Police detention house. Eifel was released because she was considered not involved in the case.

l l l

BINTAN was formerly called the Regency of the Riau Islands in Riau Province. When the province was split into two, the regency fell into the territory of the new province, the Province of the Riau Islands.

As the names are alike, people often find it hard to distinguish the Province of Riau Islands from the Regency of Riau Islands. In order not to confuse the two names, the name of Regency of Riau Islands was changed into the Regency of Bintan.

But the capital of Bintan is already used as the capital of the new province. Therefore Bintan had to find a new area which was later found in Bintan Bunyu. But some 6,800 hectares of the future capital are within a protected forest area.

The status of the protected area can be revoked by the government on the recommendation of the DPR’s Forestry and Agriculture Commission. Recommendation for the change in forest status was later issued by the DPR on April 8. Amin, a member of the Commission from the United Development Party (PPP), is suspected of having helped pave the way for the scheme.

The KPK investigators have been probing this case long before the recommendation was given. A Tempo source revealed that the investigation was started in mid-2007 when the change in forest function was being planned.

The investigation started from public reports of fraud in the plan to convert the status of the protected forests.

The months-long probe found a clue when on Thursday a fortnight ago Amin and Azirwan would reportedly meet in Jakarta. But the information was sketchy. When and where the meeting was to take place was unknown. A few days later, detailed information made it to the office of the investigators: the meeting was set for Wednesday morning last week at the Ritz-Carlton.

After obtaining the information, the investigators formed two teams. The first was an advance team assigned to watch the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and all its entry points. They also had to spy on the parking lot up to the hotel lobby. The second team, 40-strong, was assigned to arrest the suspects. After the teams were set up, they worked out their strategy.

On Tuesday last week, eight persons from the advance team were sent to the hotel. They were four from the KPK and four others from the Police Mobile Brigade.

They were posing as guests. Since they had to enter a five-star hotel, the KPK employees going under cover were “those who were regarded as fit to enter the hotel,” said a Tempo source.

After the meeting of the two suspects was confirmed, the advance team contacted the arrest team to enter the hotel immediately. Then the arrest team took action.

Being placed under detention, Amin’s political seat is in jeopardy. Temporarily he has been removed from his position as Chairman of the Jambi Provincial PPP Executive Board. “To enable him to concentrate on the investigation of the case,” said Chozin Chumaidy, deputy head of the party’s central executive board.

Despite being censured by some circles, this party dignitary still defends Amin. Deputy Chairman of the PPP faction in parliament, Lukman Hakim, strongly denied the allegation that the money confiscated from Amin was bribe money. “How come they only found Rp4 million on him,” he said.

As for the Rp67 million found in the car, Lukman believes that the money is a recess fee which Amin had just collected. Lukman is firmly convinced that his colleague did not take a bribe.

Although the issue has caused much controversy, the decision on the change of status of the protected forests is irreversible. Because, said Forestry Minister Malem Sambat Kaban, “Amin’s arrest has nothing to do with the plan for conversion of the protected forests.” The change in status, he added, is made on the basis of an analysis by experts.

Kaban’s plan is severely criticized by a number of NGO figures. “The credibility for the licensing alone is already negative, how come it (the forest function change) is forced to go ahead,” said Elfian Effendie, Executive Director of Greenomics Indonesia.

The bribery allegation befalling Amin, said Rully Sumanda, spokesman of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment, shows that something is remiss with the change in the forests’ function. Also, he does not believe that the recommendation issued by the DPR is based on an adequate environmental impact analysis.

Chairman of the Forestry and Agriculture Commission in the DPR, Ishartanto, strongly denied the alleged bribery in the changed function of the protected forests.

The conversion of the function, according to him, is based on a research of a team of experts from various institutions. Therefore, Ishartanto affirmed, “Even though Amin is arrested, there will be no re-deliberation of the converted [forests] function.”

Wenseslaus Manggut, Abdul Manan and Sunudyantoro

Tempo Magazine, No. 33/VIII/15-21 April, 2008

The KPK arrests the Bank Indonesia Governor.

THE world has rapidly changed for Burhanuddin Abdullah, 61. From his vast office in the heart of Jakarta, now this Bank Indonesia (BI) Governor has to share a cell with another inmate at the police detention center. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) held him as a suspect in the misappropriation of central bank money on Thursday last week.

During his first day in detention, he was visited by colleagues. He was talking with scores of batik-dressed men when Tempo came into the detention house’s front porch where he received the guests. Wearing a brown-collared T-shirt, he, as always, was full of smiles. A few more people arrived. One of them hugged Burhanuddin tightly.

When Tempo asked him how he was soon after his guests were gone, he replied he was doing fine. But he chose to keep mum when asked to comment on the case implicating him. “I don’t want to comment first,” he said, returning to his cell.

The KPK has been investigating this case since late 2006 after receiving a report from Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) Chairman Anwar Nasution. The report reveals an alleged misuse by the BI board of directors of funds belonging to the Indonesian Banking Development Foundation. The central bank’s top officials were questioned one after another as a result.

In the probe, the KPK discovered a disbursement of Rp127.8 billion: Rp96.3 billion for legal assistance to a number of former BI officials, while the remainder was used to pay for “dissemination costs.” It is this money that went to a number of House of Representatives (DPR) members to pay for the amendments to the Bank Indonesia Law.

Several central bank officials involved in the case are former Governor Soedradjad Djiwandono, Deputy Governor Iwan R. Prawiranata, as well as three directors: Heru Supratomo, Hendro Budiyanto, and Paul Sutopo. Some of the money going to these five individuals reportedly also went to the police, prosecutor, and the judge.

This cash flow was decided by a number of meetings of the BI Governors’ Council throughout 2003. A document obtained by Tempo shows that the first Council meeting was held on June 3, 2003. This meeting, attended by Burhanuddin Abdullah, Aulia Pohan, Bunbunan Hutapea, Aslim Tadjudin, and Roswita Roza, asked the Supervisory Board of the Banking Development Foundation to pay for BI’s incidental or urgent activities.

The next July 22 meeting agreed to form a Committee for Social Community Development in order to manage a fund of Rp100 billion from the Development Foundation. The Social Community Development Committee was headed by Rusli Simanjuntak with Oey Hoey Tiong as deputy head. It was discovered later that the money for legal assistance was paid through Oey, the dissemination money through Rusli.

The KPK split three assignments to deal with the case: financial misappropriation by the central bank board of directors; alleged disbursement of money to DPR members; and suspected transfer of money to law enforcement officials. The summons of dozens of witnesses started to yield some good results.

On January 25, the KPK named Burhanuddin Abdullah, Rusli Simanjuntak, and Oey Hoey Tiong as suspects. “Misuse of BI money,” said Chandra M. Hamzah, Deputy Chairman of the KPK’s Prosecution Section, when determining the names of the suspects. A few days later, the KPK sent Rusli Simanjuntak to the Kelapa Dua Police Mobile Brigade detention house and Oey Hoey Tiong to the Jakarta Metro Police detention house.

Some circles questioned the fact that Burhanuddin himself was not held. “Pak Burhan is cooperative. Besides, detention is not obligatory,” said Burhanuddin’s lawyer Mohammad Assegaf. Johan Budi S.P., KPK spokesman, said detention is subject to the investigator’s consideration.

In this particular case, said Assegaf, his client is charged with an attempt to enrich himself or others and with abusing his authority, thus causing the state to suffer financial losses. The maximum punishment is 20 years in prison and a fine of Rp1 billion. Assegaf questions the use of the penal code’s corruption article, since his client has simply carried out the decision of the BI Governors’ Council meetings.

He also questions the fact that the burden of guilt is placed only on Burhanuddin, “Considering that the decision is made by the Governors’ Council, not the decision made by the Governor,” argued Assegaf.

This statement also rebutted the report of former 2003 BI Deputy Governor Aulia Pohan who said that the Governor is responsible for the decision even though it is made by a meeting of the Council. “No responsibility is collegial in nature. This applies only to decision making,” Aulia told Tempo.

Assegaf contested Aulia’s defense. Quoting the Bank Indonesia Law, he opines that no decision can be made if a Governors’ Council member disagrees, meaning that everybody was unanimous when the decision was made on May 3 and July 22, 2003.

l l l

IT is not that Burhanuddin did not suspect his future detention. He told his lawyers he was ready to go to prison. This Garut, West Java-born man saw that two of his men, Rusli Simanjuntak and Oey Hoey Tiong, were already in detention. “It’s just a matter of time,” said Amir Syamsuddin.

On a Thursday morning prior to the questioning, Assegaf conveyed an invitation to Burhanuddin to the investigating officer. The invitation from the Cabinet Secretary invited Burhanuddin to accompany President Yudhoyono when receiving former Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Thursday afternoon. The investigator said he would convey the matter to his superior.

Assegaf hoped that the request would again be granted. Late in March, Burhanuddin was also invited to the Palace to give suggestions on the people to replace him. Two names, Agus Martowardojo and Raden Pardede, proposed to the DPR were rejected. Prior to the questioning, Assegaf conveyed the invitation to the investigator. It received a positive reply. Starting at around 10am, the questioning ended less than four hours later. Burhanuddin was able to hasten to the State Palace.

But, this time the investigator asked Burhanuddin whether he could be represented. Burhanuddin checked the Palace protocol and was told he could be represented. So Burhan chose to go on with the questioning. “Yes, we’ll just get the matter done,” said Assegaf quoting Burhanuddin. Upon completion, he planned to go to the Palace.

It turned out the matter was not done. Nearing 2pm, the investigator produced a letter. “Sir, you are under arrest. Here’s the arrest warrant,” said the investigating officer. According to Assegaf, Burhanuddin appeared shocked but he did not try to argue. “He signed it right away,” he said.

Thereafter Burhanuddin, wearing a suit, was taken directly to National Police HQ where he was placed in a cell with Indra Setiawan, former Garuda CEO who is a suspect in the case of the murder of human rights activist Munir.

In the afternoon following Burhanuddin’s detention, his colleagues started showing their sympathy. Visitors were endless until the next day. To one of his visitors Friday last week, he said he was unable to take a rest. “I slept for only an hour,” he said.

Abdul Manan, Sunudyantoro, Yugha Erlangga

Tempo Magazine, No. 33/VIII/15-21 April, 2008

Diduga menerima suap untuk proyek alih fungsi hutan, anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Al-Amin Nur Nasution, diringkus aparat. Tapi Menteri Kehutanan membela proyek penggundulan hutan itu.

PUKUL satu dini hari Rabu pekan lalu. Dua pria bersua di lobi Hotel Ritz Carlton di kawasan Mega Kuningan, Jakarta Selatan. Yang satu bernama Al-Amin Nur Nasution, anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dari Komisi Kehutanan dan Pertanian. Yang lain Azirwan, Sekretaris Daerah Kabupaten Bintan, Kepulauan Riau. Keduanya terlihat berbicara serius.

Mereka tidak menyadari bahwa delapan penyidik dari Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi juga tengah serius mengintai keduanya.

Sekitar setengah jam ngobrol di lobi, dengan lift Amin dan Azirwan bergegas naik ke lantai satu. Setelah itu, keduanya lalu lenyap.

Para penyidik sempat cemas karena kehilangan jejak. Untung saja, sesaat kemudian diketahui dua buruan itu masuk ke sebuah kamar di samping kafe. Ini bukan kamar tidur, tapi ruang rapat sewaan.

Di situ sudah menunggu asisten Azirwan dan seorang nona berwajah permai, yang belakangan diketahui bernama Eifel. Si cantik mengenakan sweater cokelat dan celana jins hitam ketat. Perbincangan dilanjutkan di ruang itu.

Pukul dua pagi, delapan penyidik menyergap. Penghuni kamar terperanjat. ”Ada apa ini?” kata Amin seperti ditirukan sumber Tempo.

Seorang penyidik menjawab, ”Kami dari KPK. Bapak diminta ikut ke kantor. Ini surat perintah kami.” Sebentar membaca surat itu, Amin dan tiga orang lainnya menyerah digiring penyidik.

Dari tangan Amin disita uang Rp 4 juta. Dari ruangan itu, penyidik juga menyita uang Sin$ 33 ribu atau setara dengan Rp 220 juta.

Saat mereka digiring ke mobil, penyidik lain memeriksa mobil Amin yang diparkir di basement hotel. Di sana ditemukan uang Rp 67 juta.

Pagi itu, empat orang dan semua barang bukti dibawa ke kantor komisi antikorupsi, yang letaknya tidak jauh dari Ritz Carlton. Penyidik juga menyita mobil sedan BMW hitam milik Amin sebagai barang bukti.

Penyidik menduga uang itu diberikan atas suksesnya alih fungsi area hutan lindung Bintan Bunyu di Riau menjadi area ibu kota Kabupaten Bintan. Kini penyidik Komisi serius menelusuri kebenaran dugaan itu.

Untuk sementara, Amin dititipkan di rumah tahanan Kepolisian Daerah Metro Jaya, sedangkan Azirwan di rumah tahan Kepolisian Resor Jakarta Selatan. Adapun Eifel dilepas lantaran diduga tidak terkait dengan kasus ini.

l l l

BINTAN semula bernama Kabupaten Kepulauan Riau di Provinsi Riau. Saat provinsi itu dibagi dua, kabupaten tersebut masuk wilayah provinsi baru: Provinsi Kepulauan Riau.

Lantaran namanya mirip, orang kerap susah membedakan Provinsi Kepulauan Riau dengan Kabupaten Kepulauan Riau. Agar dua nama itu tidak tertukar, Kabupaten Kepulauan Riau kemudian diganti namanya menjadi Kabupaten Bintan.

Tapi ibu kota Bintan sudah dipakai jadi ibu kota provinsi baru. Karena itu, Bintan harus mencari wilayah baru, yang belakangan ditemukanlah daerah di Bintan Bunyu. Tapi sekitar 6.800 hektare calon ibu kota itu masuk kawasan hutang lindung.

Nah, status hutan lindung itu bisa dicabut pemerintah apabila mendapat rekomendasi dari Komisi Kehutanan dan Pertanian di lembaga legislatif. Rekomendasi soal alih fungsi tersebut kemudian diterbitkan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat 8 April lalu. Amin, yang menjadi anggota komisi itu dari Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, diduga ikut memuluskan rencana.

Para penyidik dari komisi pemburu koruptor tersebut sudah menyelisik kasus ini jauh sebelum rekomendasi itu diberikan. Sumber Tempo menuturkan bahwa penelusuran itu sudah dilakukan sejak pertengahan 2007, saat alih fungsi tersebut direncanakan.

Penyelisikan itu bermula dari laporan masyarakat tentang adanya kongkalikong dalam rencana alih fungsi hutan lindung tersebut.

Penelusuran berbulan-bulan mendapat titik terang. Kamis dua pekan lalu beredar kabar Amin dan Azirwan bakal bertemu di Jakarta.

Tapi informasi ini cuma secuil. Belum diketahui kapan dan di mana pertemuan itu berlangsung. Beberapa hari kemudian informasi yang lebih detail masuk ruang penyidik. Pertemuan akan berlangsung Rabu pagi pekan lalu itu di Ritz Carlton.

Setelah mendapat informasi penting tersebut, penyidik membentuk dua tim. Yang pertama adalah tim advanced, yang bertugas mengawasi Hotel Ritz Carlton serta semua jalan masuk menuju hotel itu. Mereka juga harus mengawasi ruang parkir hingga lobi hotel. Tim kedua, yang berjumlah 40 orang, bertugas menyergap para tersangka. Sesudah tim dibentuk, lalu diatur strateginya.

Selasa pagi pekan lalu, delapan orang dari tim pendahulu dikirim ke hotel itu. Empat orang pegawai komisi antikorupsi tersebut dan empat lainnya dari Brigade Mobil Kepolisian RI.

Mereka menyamar sebagai tamu. Karena harus ke hotel bintang lima yang supermewah, pegawai komisi yang menyaru adalah, ”Pegawai yang dianggap pantas masuk hotel itu,” kata sumber Tempo.

Setelah dipastikan bahwa dua tersangka sedang bertemu, tim advanced mengontak tim penyergap agar segera masuk ke hotel. Selanjutnya tim penyergap bergerak.

Mereka masuk melalui lahan parkir. Dari situ naik ke ruang lobi, lalu dengan lift menuju lantai satu. Dan sekitar pukul dua pagi mereka melakukan penyergapan.

Setelah ditahan, kursi politik Amin bakal terancam. Untuk sementara, dia sudah dinonaktifkan dari posisinya sebagai Ketua Dewan Pimpinan Wilayah Partai Persatuan Pembangunan Provinsi Jambi. ”Agar dia bisa berkonsentrasi dalam penyelidikan kasus ini,” kata Chozin Chumaidy, wakil ketua pengurus pusat partai itu.

Walau dicerca sejumlah kalangan, petinggi partai itu masih membela Amin. Wakil Ketua Fraksi Persatuan Pembangunan Lukman Hakim membantah keras dugaan bahwa uang yang disita dari tangan Amin merupakan uang suap. ”Masak tertangkap tangan cuma Rp 4 juta,” ujarnya.

Soal uang Rp 67 juta yang ditemukan di mobil, Lukman menduga uang itu dana reses yang baru diambil Al-Amin. Lukman hakulyakin bahwa koleganya tersebut tidak menerima suap.

Walau telah menuai kontroversi begitu ramai, putusan soal alih fungsi hutan lindung itu tidak akan berubah. Sebab, kata Menteri Kehutanan Malem Sambat Kaban, ”Kasus tertangkapnya Amin tidak ada hubungannya dengan rencana pengalihan hutan lindung itu.” Alih fungsi itu, kata dia, dilakukan berdasarkan analisis para ahli.

Rencana Kaban tersebut dikecam sejumlah tokoh lembaga swadaya masyarakat. ”Kredibilitas perizinannya saja sudah negatif, kok, nekat,” kata Elfian Effendie, Direktur Eksekutif Greenomics Indonesia.

Dugaan penyuapan yang menimpa Amin, kata juru bicara Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia, Rully Sumanda, menunjukkan ada sesuatu yang tidak beres dengan alih fungsi itu. Dia juga tidak percaya rekomendasi yang diterbitkan Dewan berdasarkan analisis mengenai dampak lingkungan yang memadai.

Ketua Komisi Kehutanan dan Pertanian di lembaga legislatif, Ishartanto, membantah keras soal dugaan suap dalam alih fungsi hutang lindung tersebut.

Alih fungsi itu, menurut dia, berdasarkan penelitian tim ahli dari berbagai lembaga. Jadi Ishartanto menegaskan, ”Meski Amin ditangkap, tidak ada pembahasan ulang soal alih fungsi itu.”

Wenseslaus Manggut, Abdul Manan dan Sunudyantoro

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 08/XXXVII/14 - 20 April 2008

Komisi antikorupsi menahan Gubernur Bank Indonesia. Ia sudah menduga akan masuk sel.

Dunia berubah cepat bagi Burhanuddin Abdullah, 61 tahun. Dari kantornya yang luas di jantung Jakarta, kini Gubernur Bank Indonesia itu harus berbagi sel ruang tahanan Badan Reserse Kriminal Markas Besar Kepolisian Negara. Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi menahannya sebagai tersangka kasus penyelewengan dana bank sentral, Kamis pekan lalu.

Hari pertama di tahanan, ia didatangi para kolega. Ia sedang berbicara dengan puluhan pria berbaju batik tatkala Tempo masuk ruang depan tahanan, tempat ia menerima tamu. Mengenakan kaus cokelat berkerah, ia tetap banyak senyum. Beberapa orang kembali datang, seorang di antaranya lalu memeluk erat Burhanuddin.

Sewaktu Tempo menanyakan kabarnya segera setelah para tamunya beranjak pergi, ia menjawab baik. Tapi ia memilih tutup mulut ketika dimintai pendapat atas kasus yang membelitnya. ”Saya tak mau berkomentar dulu,” katanya sembari kembali melangkah ke sel.

Komisi antikorupsi mengusut kasus ini sejak akhir 2006, setelah menerima laporan Ketua Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Anwar Nasution. Laporan itu mengungkapkan sejumlah dugaan penyalahgunaan dana Yayasan Pengembangan Perbankan Indonesia oleh direksi Bank Indonesia. Satu per satu petinggi bank sentral itu dimintai keterangan.

Dalam pemeriksaan Komisi diketahui ada aliran Rp 127,8 miliar: Rp 96,3 miliar untuk bantuan hukum sejumlah mantan pejabat bank sentral dan sisanya ”biaya diseminasi”. Dana inilah yang mengalir ke sejumlah anggota Dewan, untuk membiayai amendemen Undang-Undang Bank Indonesia.

Beberapa pejabat bank sentral yang terjerat kasus hukum adalah bekas Gubernur Soedrajad Djiwandono, Deputi Gubernur Iwan R. Prawiranata, serta tiga direktur: Heru Supratomo, Hendro Budiyanto, dan Paul Sutopo. Dana yang mengalir untuk kelima orang ini disebut-sebut mengalir pula ke polisi, jaksa, dan hakim.Edisi. 37/VII/07 - 13 April 2008
Nasional
Informasi Publik
Mulus dengan Catatan
Undang-Undang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik disahkan dengan satu catatan. Dua pasal krusial diselesaikan melalui lobi.

SETUJU! Pekik itu menggema di ruang sidang ketika Ketua Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Agung Laksono meminta persetujuan pengesahan Undang-Undang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik, Kamis pekan lalu. ”Undang-undang ini memang tinggal ketuk palu saja,” kata ketua panitia kerja rancangan undang-undang itu, Arif Mudatsir Mandan.

Sebetulnya, pengesahan itu tak mulus-mulus benar. Fraksi Kebangkitan Bangsa satu-satunya yang menyampaikan catatan keberatan: soal pemberlakuan undang-undang ini pada 2010. ”Undang-undang ini amanat reformasi, sehingga kami memberi catatan keberatan kalau harus diberlakukan dua tahun lagi,” kata juru bicara FKB, Masduki Baidlowi.

Memang tak terlalu mengejutkan. Sehari sebelum sidang paripurna, Komisi I DPR menggelar rapat kerja dengan Menteri Komunikasi dan Informatika Mohammad Nuh serta Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Andi Mattalata. Dalam rapat yang dibuka pukul 19.00 dan berakhir menjelang tengah malam itu, hanya FKB yang menyampaikan catatan keberatan soal waktu pemberlakuan undang-undang ini. Untuk soal lainnya, semua fraksi akur.

Menurut Arif, mulusnya pengesahan sudah bisa diperkirakan sekitar seminggu sebelum sidang. Dua soal yang paling alot, yaitu tentang badan usaha milik negara dan daerah serta besarnya sanksi bagi pejabat publik dan pengguna informasi, sudah disepakati melalui lobi terakhir di Ruang ASEAN Hotel Sultan, Jakarta, 27 Maret lalu. Pasal-pasal lain sudah beres lebih dulu.

l l l

AWALNYA, ini merupakan inisiatif DPR periode 1999-2004. Namanya RUU Kebebasan Memperoleh Informasi Publik. Panitia khususnya dibentuk pada 18 Februari 2003. Pembahasan belum kelar, masa tugas Dewan keburu berakhir. DPR periode 2004-2009 melanjutkan inisiatif ini. Pada 5 Juli 2005, DPR resmi menjadikan rancangan ini sebagai inisiatif DPR.

Cukup banyak soal krusial dalam RUU ini. Pertama, soal nama. Dalam usul DPR, namanya adalah RUU Kebebasan Memperoleh Informasi Publik. Namun, ”Pemerintah alergi dengan penggunaan istilah kebebasan,” kata anggota Pansus, Andreas Parera. Akhirnya, nama pun berubah.

Itu baru satu soal. Pasal krusial lainnya mengenai Komisi Informasi, jenis informasi yang dikecualikan, masa berlaku undang-undang, masuk-tidaknya BUMN dalam kategori lembaga publik, serta sanksi untuk pengguna informasi.

Tiga soal yang disebut di depan bisa diselesaikan dalam pembahasan panitia kerja selama kurun waktu Juni 2005 hingga Januari 2008. Tapi tidak demikian halnya dengan dua yang disebut belakangan. Hingga awal 2008, DPR dan pemerintah belum satu kata, sehingga harus ada lobi.

Pada 27 Februari 2008, terjadi lobi pertama antara wakil pemerintah dan DPR. Bertempat di Restoran Nippon Khan, Hotel Sultan, tim pemerintah diwakili Menteri Komunikasi dan Informatika Mohammad Nuh, Menteri Negara BUMN Sofyan Djalil, serta Menteri Hukum dan HAM Andi Mattalata.

Tim ini diperkuat oleh Kepala Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional Ahmad Ramli, Sekretaris Menteri Negara BUMN Said Didu, serta Direktur Jenderal Sistem Komunikasi dan Diseminasi Informatika Departemen Komunikasi Fredy Tulung. Tim lobi DPR dipimpin Ketua Komisi Informasi DPR Theo L. Sambuaga serta wakil tiap-tiap fraksi.

Pemerintah menyampaikan, terbukanya informasi soal strategi bisnis di BUMN bisa mengakibatkan penurunan daya saing. ”Kalau strategi dan segala macamnya itu dibuka, kan bisa menurunkan daya saing karena rahasianya diketahui kompetitor,” kata Ramli, menirukan argumentasi pemerintah dalam pertemuan itu.

Sofyan Djalil memperkuat argumen tersebut dengan menyatakan rezim politik dan rezim bisnis harus dibedakan. Kepada wakil dari DPR, Sofyan menyatakan BUMN itu masuk rezim bisnis. Wakil dari DPR tak setuju dengan argumen itu. ”Tak bisa sepenuhnya dipisahkan seperti itu,” kata wakil dari Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan, Andreas Parera.

Dedy Jamaluddin Malik dari Fraksi Amanat Nasional langsung menyampaikan bantahan dengan menggunakan contoh pengangkatan Andi Arief sebagai komisaris PT Pos dan Syaifullah Yusuf sebagai komisaris BRI. ”Apakah itu bisa disebut BUMN mengikuti rezim bisnis?” tanya Dedy. Sofyan Djalil berpikir sejenak, sebelum akhirnya mengatakan, ”O, kalau begitu harus dijabarkan ketentuannya.”

Rapat yang dimulai sekitar pukul 19.00 itu menyepakati lobi lanjutan, yang membahas soal apa saja yang bisa dibuka dari BUMN. Dalam pertemuan sekitar tiga jam tersebut, pemerintah juga menyinggung soal sanksi bagi pengguna informasi. Pemerintah ingin pengguna pun diberi sanksi setimpal dengan pejabat publik, sedangkan DPR berpendapat sebaliknya: sanksi bagi pengguna harus minimal. ”Kami tak membahas soal sanksi ini karena soal BUMN itu belum selesai,” kata Dedy.

Lobi kedua dilakukan pada 17 Maret lalu di The Olive Tree Restaurant, Hotel Nikko Jakarta. Waktunya sama seperti sebelumnya, pesertanya lebih sedikit. Pemerintah diwakili Fredy Tulung, Ahmad Ramli, dan Said Didu.

Dalam pertemuan ini, pemerintah menawarkan tiga hal yang bisa dibuka dari BUMN, yaitu kepemilikan saham; maksud, tujuan, dan kegiatan usaha perusahaan; kegiatan usaha terkait dengan penugasan pemerintah dalam pelayanan publik; serta informasi lain yang ditetapkan peraturan perundangan.

Bagi wakil DPR, tawaran ini kurang menarik. ”Karena kategorinya sangat umum dan kurang tegas,” kata Dedy Jamaluddin. Lobi yang berlangsung sekitar dua setengah jam itu tak menghasilkan kesepakatan. Akhirnya, lobi akan dilanjutkan di tempat sama, dengan peserta yang sama, dua hari berikutnya.

Dalam lobi yang ketiga, DPR menilai tawaran pemerintah lebih baik. Pemerintah menyodorkan 13 daftar informasi yang bisa dibuka BUMN. ”Kami akhirnya setuju, karena ada klausul yang menyebutkan bahwa mekanisme penetapan direksi dan komisaris/dewan komisaris bisa dibuka,” kata Dedy.

Dengan dibukanya ketentuan ini, menurut Dedy, publik bisa mempersoalkan jika terjadi pengangkatan komisaris atau direksi yang tak sesuai dengan kriteria. Ahmad Ramli mengakui ada kesan DPR mencurigai pemerintah memanfaatkan BUMN untuk kepentingannya. ”Tapi kan akhirnya informasi BUMN juga dibuka,” ujarnya.

Pertemuan sekitar satu setengah jam itu juga membahas soal ancaman sanksi bagi pengguna informasi. Pemerintah menuntut adanya persamaan perlakuan antara pejabat publik dan pengguna yang melanggar undang-undang ini. ”Akhirnya, komprominya adalah besar hukumannya sama-sama diturunkan,” kata Arif Mudatsir Mandan.

Hasil inilah yang kemudian dilaporkan dalam lobi berikutnya di Ruang ASEAN Hotel Sultan, 27 Maret lalu. Tim lobi pemerintah dan DPR menyampaikan hasil dua pertemuan sebelumnya. Pertama, ada sejumlah daftar informasi yang bisa dibuka oleh BUMN. Kedua, besar sanksi pidana dan penjara untuk pejabat dan pengguna informasi dikurangi separuhnya. ”Wakil fraksi menerima hasil itu,” kata Dedy.

DPR menilai undang-undang ini merupakan hasil terbaik yang bisa dicapai. ”Ini hasil maksimal,” kata anggota tim lobi, Dedy Jamaluddin. Andreas Parera menambahkan, ”Undang-undang ini diharapkan dapat menjadi kontrol publik terhadap penyelenggaraan negara oleh lembaga pemerintah dan nonpemerintah.”

Koordinator Lobi Koalisi Kebebasan Informasi Publik Agus Sudibyo menilai undang-undang ini lebih jelek daripada draf inisiatif DPR. Ia mempertanyakan adanya sanksi bagi pengguna informasi. ”Dari 75 negara di dunia yang memiliki undang-undang kebebasan memperoleh informasi, hanya ini yang menyediakan sanksi bagi pengguna informasi,” ujar Agus. Pasal pidananya pun bisa bersifat karet. Tapi, kata Agus, bukan berarti tak ada nilai positifnya. ”Undang-undang ini memberikan kepastian tentang apa yang wajib dibuka dan apa yang dikecualikan,” katanya.

Abdul Manan

Yang Krusial dari UU Keterbukaan Informasi Publik

Informasi yang tak boleh dibuka atau dikecualikan (Pasal 17)
Informasi yang bisa menghambat proses penegakan hukum;
Informasi yang dapat mengganggu kepentingan perlindungan HAKI dan perlindungan persaingan usaha tidak sehat;
Informasi yang dapat membahayakan pertahanan dan keamanan negara;
Informasi yang dapat merugikan ketahanan ekonomi nasional;
Informasi yang dapat merugikan kepentingan hubungan luar negeri;
Informasi berisi akta otentik yang bersifat pribadi dan kemauan terakhir atau wasiat seseorang;
Informasi yang mengungkap rahasia pribadi.

Komisi Informasi (Pasal 23-2
Komisi Informasi Pusat beranggotakan 7 orang, komisi informasi provinsi/kabupaten/kota, yang mencerminkan unsur pemerintah dan unsur masyarakat;
Rekrutmen calon anggota dilaksanakan oleh pemerintah. Untuk tingkat pusat, seleksi dilakukan DPR, untuk daerah oleh DPRD.

Sanksi Pidana (Pasal 51-5)
Setiap orang yang sengaja menggunakan informasi publik secara melawan hukum dipidana penjara paling lama 1 tahun dan/atau denda paling banyak Rp 5 juta;
Badan publik yang tidak menyediakan informasi publik dan mengakibatkan kerugian orang lain dipidana penjara 1 tahun atau denda paling banyak Rp 5 juta;
Setiap orang yang menghancurkan, merusak, atau menghilangkan dokumen informasi publik dipidana penjara paling lama 2 tahun dan denda paling banyak Rp 10 juta;
Setiap orang yang sengaja mengakses, memperoleh, atau memberikan informasi yang dikecualikan dipidana penjara maksimal 2 tahun dan/atau denda paling banyak Rp 10 juta;
Setiap orang yang sengaja mengakses, memperoleh, atau memberikan informasi yang bisa mengancam pertahanan dan keamanan negara atau merugikan ketahanan ekonomi nasional dipidana penjara paling lama 3 tahun dan denda paling banyak Rp 20 juta;
Setiap orang yang sengaja membuat informasi publik yang tidak benar atau menyesatkan dan mengakibatkan kerugian orang lain dipidana penjara paling lama 1 tahun dan denda paling banyak Rp 5 juta.

Aliran dana ini merupakan hasil keputusan sejumlah rapat Dewan Gubernur selama 2003. Dari dokumen yang diperoleh Tempo, rapat Dewan Gubernur pertama dilaksanakan pada 3 Juni 2003. Rapat yang dihadiri Burhanuddin Abdullah, Aulia Pohan, Bunbunan Hutapea, Aslim Tadjudin, dan Roswita Roza itu meminta Dewan Pengawas Yayasan Pengembangan Perbankan menanggulangi kebutuhan Bank Indonesia dalam membiayai kegiatan insidental atau mendesak.

Dalam rapat berikutnya, 22 Juli, disepakati membentuk Panitia Pengembangan Sosial Kemasyarakatan untuk mengelola dana Rp 100 miliar dari Yayasan Pengembangan itu. Ketua Panitia Pengembangan Sosial ini adalah Rusli Simanjuntak, sedangkan wakil ketuanya Oey Hoey Tiong. Belakangan juga diketahui, dana bantuan hukum dialirkan melalui Oey, sedangkan dana diseminasi melalui Rusli.

Komisi memecah penanganan kasusnya menjadi tiga: dugaan penyelewengan dana oleh direksi Bank Indonesia, dugaan aliran dana kepada anggota Dewan, dan dugaan aliran dana kepada aparat penegak hukum. Pemanggilan puluhan saksi pun mulai membuahkan hasil.

Pada 25 Januari lalu, Komisi menetapkan Burhanuddin Abdullah, Rusli Simanjuntak, dan Oey Hoey Tiong sebagai tersangka. ”Penyalahgunaan dana Bank Indonesia,” kata Wakil Ketua Komisi Bidang Penindakan Chandra M. Hamzah, soal penetapan itu. Selang beberapa hari dari penetapan itu, Komisi mengirim Rusli Simanjuntak ke tahanan Brimob Kelapa Dua, sedangkan Oey Hoey Tiong ke ruang tahanan kepolisian Metro Jaya.

Karena Burhanuddin tak ikut ditahan, beberapa kalangan saat itu mempertanyakannya. ”Pak Burhan kooperatif. Lagi pula, penahanan itu kan tidak wajib,” kata pengacara Burhanuddin, Mohammad Assegaf. Johan Budi S.P., juru bicara Komisi, mengatakan penahanan dilakukan berdasarkan pertimbangan penyidik.

Dalam kasus ini, kata Assegaf, kliennya dituduh telah memperkaya diri sendiri atau orang lain serta menyalahgunakan kewenangannya yang mengakibatkan kerugian negara. Ancaman hukumannya maksimal 20 tahun penjara dan denda maksimal Rp 1 miliar. Assegaf mempertanyakan penggunaan pasal korupsi ini karena kliennya hanya melaksanakan keputusan rapat Dewan Gubernur.

Dia juga mempertanyakan beban kesalahan yang ditimpakan hanya kepada Burhanuddin. ”Padahal keputusannya dibuat berdasarkan hasil rapat Dewan Gubernur, bukan keputusan gubernur,” kata Assegaf.

Pernyataan ini juga menangkis cerita Aulia Pohan. Deputi Gubernur pada 2003 itu mengatakan bahwa tanggung jawab tetap ditanggung gubernur meski pengambilan keputusan diambil melalui rapat Dewan Gubernur. ”Tanggung jawab tidak ada yang bersifat kolegial. Itu hanya berlaku untuk pengambilan keputusan,” kata Aulia kepada Tempo.

Assegaf mempertanyakan pembelaan Aulia. Menyitir Undang-Undang Bank Indonesia, ia berpendapat bahwa keputusan tak bisa diambil jika ada anggota Dewan Gubernur tak setuju. Artinya, semua sepakat saat pengambilan keputusan pada 3 Mei dan 22 Juli 2003 itu.

l l l

PENAHANAN ini bukannya tak diduga sama sekali oleh Burhanuddin. Kepada sejumlah pengacaranya, pria kelahiran Garut, Jawa Barat, ini menyatakan sudah bersiap-siap masuk sel. Ia melihat dua anak buahnya, Rusli Simanjuntak dan Oey Hoey Tiong, yang lebih dulu ditahan. ”Memang hanya soal waktu,” kata Amir Syamsuddin.

Kamis pagi sebelum pemeriksaan, kepada penyidik Assegaf menyampaikan undangan untuk Burhanuddin yang dikirim Sekretaris Kabinet. Di situ tertulis Burhanuddin diundang untuk menemani Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono menemui mantan Perdana Menteri Pakistan Shaukat Aziz, Kamis sore. Penyidik mengatakan akan menyampaikan hal itu kepada atasannya.

Assegaf berharap permintaan itu kembali dikabulkan. Pada akhir Maret lalu, Burhanuddin juga diundang ke Istana untuk memberikan masukan tentang calon penggantinya. Dua nama yang diusulkan ke Dewan, Agus Martowardojo dan Raden Pardede, saat itu lebih dulu ditolak. Sebelum diperiksa, ia menyampaikan undangan itu ke penyidik. Sinyalnya positif. Dimulai sekitar pukul 10 pagi, pemeriksaan berakhir kurang dari empat jam. Burhanuddin bisa segera ke Istana Negara.

Tapi undangan Istana kali ini tak mempan. Penyidik bertanya kepada Burhanuddin apakah kehadirannya tak bisa diwakilkan. Burhanuddin mengecek ke protokol Istana dan diberi tahu kedatangannya bisa diwakilkan. Burhan pun memilih meneruskan proses pemeriksaan. ”Ya, kita selesaikan saja urusan ini,” kata Burhanuddin, seperti ditirukan Assegaf. Setelah beres, rencananya ia baru ke Istana.

Ternyata urusannya tak kunjung beres. Menjelang pukul dua siang, penyidik menyodorkan surat. ”Pak, Anda ditahan. Ini surat penahanannya,” kata sang penyidik. Menurut Assegaf, Burhanuddin terlihat kaget tapi tak mencoba beradu argumentasi. ”Beliau langsung tanda tangan,” katanya.

Setelah itu, ia yang bersetelan jas dan celana hitam langsung dibawa ke Markas Besar Kepolisian. Ia ditempatkan satu sel dengan Indra Setiawan, bekas Direktur Utama Garuda Indonesia yang menjadi tersangka kasus pembunuhan aktivis Munir.

Sore setelah penahanan Burhanud-din, simpati dari koleganya berdatangan. Tamu tak berhenti mengalir sampai esok harinya. Kepada seorang penjenguknya, Jumat pekan lalu, ia mengaku tak bisa istirahat. ”Saya hanya tidur sejam,” katanya.

Abdul Manan, Sunudyantoro, Yugha Erlangga

Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 08/XXXVII/14 - 20 April 2008

The Freedom of Information Bill was ratified with one formal objection. Two crucial articles were resolved through lobbying.

“AGREED!” The cry reverberated across the seminar room when House of Representatives (DPR) Speaker Agung Laksono called for an agreement to ratify the Freedom of Information Bill on Thursday last week. “Indeed, all that remains is a final verdict on the law,” said Arif Mudatsir Mandan, chair of the working committee that drafted the law.

Actually, the approval was not totally unanimous. The National Awakening faction (FKB) was the only one to register a formal objection over the law not coming into force until 2010. “This law is a mandate of reform, so we are making a formal objection that it shall not come into effect for two more years,” said FKB spokesman Masduki Baidlowi.

This was not in fact very surprising. A day before the plenary meeting, the DPR’s Commission I held a working meeting with Communication & Information Minister Mohammad Nuh and Justice & Human Rights Minister Andi Mattalata. During the meeting that opened at 7pm and ended near midnight, only the FKB registered a formal objection over when the law would come into force. On the other issues, all of the factions were in agreement.

According to Arif, it was already apparent a week before the session that the ratification would proceed smoothly. The two most contentious issues, the question of central and regional government state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the size of penalties for violations by public officials and information users, had already been agreed to through a final round of lobbying at the Sultan Hotel’s ASEAN Room in Jakarta on March 27. Other contentious articles had already been settled earlier.

l l l

INITIALLY, the law was an initiative launched by the DPR for the period 1999-2004, and called the Draft Law on Freedom to Obtain Public Information. Although a special committee was formed on February 18, 2003, deliberations had yet to finish when the assembly’s term in office came to an end. The DPR for the period 2004-2009 continued the initiative and on July 5, 2005 the DPR officially made the draft into a DPR initiative.

There were a number of crucial issues related to the draft law. First, its name. At the DPR’s suggestion, it was called the Draft Law on Freedom to Obtain Public Information. However, “The government was allergic to the use of the term freedom,” said special committee member Andreas Parera. In the end, the name was also changed.

This was just one of the problems. The other crucial articles related to the formation of an Information Commission, what types of information would be exempted, the law’s period of validity, the inclusion or not of SOEs under the category of public institutions, and penalties for information users.

The first three issues were resolved during working committee meetings between June 2005 and January 2008. But this was not the case, however, with the last two. As of early 2008, the DPR and the government were still not in agreement, so a lobbying process began.

The first round of lobbying between government representatives and the DPR took place on February 27, 2008. Taking place at the Nippon Khan restaurant at the Sultan Hotel, the government’s team was represented by Communication & Information Minister Mohammad Nuh, SOEs Minister Sofyan Djalil and Justice & Human Rights Minister Andi Mattalata.

The team was reinforced by the head of the Agency for National Legal Development Ahmad Ramli, the State Secretary for SOEs, Said Didu, and Fredy Tulung, Director-General for Communication Systems & Information Dissemination from the Department of Communication. The DPR’s lobbying team was headed by the chair of the DPR’s Communication Commission, Theo L. Sambuaga, and representatives from each parliamentary faction.

The government expressed the view that the disclosure of information on business strategy at an SOE could result in a decline in competitiveness. “If the strategy and those kinds of things are disclosed, it could reduce competitiveness because their secrets would be known by competitors, right,” said Ramli, quoting from the government’s arguments at the meeting.

Sofyan Djalil supported the argument by stating that political and business regimes had to be differentiated. Speaking to the chief representative from the DPR, Sofyan stated that SOEs are included in the realm of business. The representatives from the DPR disagreed with the arguments. “It can’t be totally separated like that,” said Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle representative Andreas Parera.

Dedy Jamaluddin Malik from the National Mandate Party faction immediately raised an objection to using the example of the appointment of Andi Arief as commissioner of PT Pos and Syaifullah Yusuf as commissioner of Bank Rakyat Indonesia. “Can this be cited as a state-owned enterprise participating in the realm of business?” asked Dedy. Sofyan Djalil thought for a moment before finally saying, “Oh, in that case [we] have to spell out the definitions.”

The meeting, which began at around 7pm, agreed to a follow-up round of lobbying that would discuss the issue of exactly what can be disclosed about a state-owned enterprise. During the meeting the government also touched on the issue of penalties for information users. The government wanted users to be subject to the same penalties as public officials, while the DPR was of the opposite opinion, that penalties for users should be minimal. “We didn’t get around to discussing the issue of penalties because the issue of SOEs wasn’t finished yet,” said Dedy.

The second round of lobbying was held on March 17 at the Olive Tree Restaurant at the Hotel Nikko Jakarta. The time was similar to the previous meeting although there were fewer participants. Fredy Tulung, Ahmad Ramli and Said Didu represented the government.

At this meeting, the government proposed that three things could be disclosed about an SOE: share ownership; the purpose, aims and business activities of the company; business activities linked to government assignments in public services; along with other information as determined by legislation.

But for the DPR members the offer was not so attractive. “Because the categories were general and not explicit enough,” said Dedy. The lobbying that proceeded for around two hours failed to produce an agreement. In the end, it was continued at the same location and with the same participants, two days later.

During the third round of lobbying, the DPR considered the government’s next offer to be an improvement. The government submitted 13 lists of information that could be disclosed about SOEs. “We finally agreed, because there was a clause that stated that the determination mechanisms could be corrected and the [selection of] commissioners/board of commissioners would be open,” said Dedy.

According to Dedy, with these stipulations being clarified the public could raise questions if the appointment of the commissioners or management was not in accordance with the criteria. Ahmad Ramli however does concede that there is an impression that the DPR suspects that the government took advantage of the SOEs issue for its own interests. “But in the end right, information about SOEs will also be disclosed,” he said.

The meeting, which lasted for around one and a half hours, also discussed the issue of penalties for information users. The government demanded that there be equal treatment for public officials and users who violate the law. “In the end, the compromise was that the severity of the sentence handed down would be the same,” said Arif Mudatsir Mandan.

It was this outcome that was then reported in the following round of lobbying at the Sultan Hotel ASEAN Room on March 27. The government and the DPR’s team of lobbyists submitted the results of the two earlier meetings. First, there would be lists of information that could be disclosed by SOEs. Second, the severity of the criminal penalties and jail sentences for officials and information users would be reduced by half. “The faction representatives accepted the outcome,” said Dedy.

The DPR believes that the law represents the best result that could have been achieved under the circumstances. “This was the best result,” said Dedy. Andreas Parera added, “It is hoped that this legislation can become a [mechanism of] public control over state administration by government and non-government agencies.”

Freedom of Public Information Coalition Lobby Coordinator, Agus Sudibyo, however, believes that the law is worse than the draft initiated by the DPR. He questions the existence of penalties for information users. “Of the 75 countries in the world that have freedom of information bills, only this one provides penalties for information users,” said Agus. The criminal articles can also be interpreted to one’s liking. But, says Agus, this does not mean that it has no positive value. “This law will provide certainty about what must be disclosed and what will be exempted,” he said.

Abdul Manan

Crucial Elements of the Bill

Information that cannot be exposed or exempted (Article 17)
Information that could obstruct the process of law enforcement;
Information that could impinge upon the interests of protecting intellectual property rights and the protection of unhealthy business competition;
Information that could endanger state defense and security;
Information that could damage national economic resilience;
Information that could damage foreign relations;
Information that contains authentic documents of a private nature and the last will or testament of an individual;
Information that discloses matters that are private and confidential.

Information Commission (Articles 23-2
The National Information Commission shall have a membership of seven people, provincial/regency/municipal information commissions, shall reflect elements of the government and elements of the public;
Recruitment of candidate members shall be carried out by the government. At the national level, selection will be carried out by the DPR, for the regions by the DPRD (Regional House of Representatives).

Criminal Penalties (Articles 51-5)
Any person who intentionally uses public information to violate the law shall be sentenced to a maximum of one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of Rp5 million;
Public agencies that fail to provide public information and cause harm to another individual shall be sentenced to a maximum of one year in jail or a maximum fine of Rp5 million;
Any person that destroys, damages or removes public documents shall be sentenced to a maximum of two years in jail and a maximum fine of Rp10 million;
Any person who intentionally accesses, obtains or provides information that has been exempted shall be sentenced to a maximum of two years in jail and/or a maximum fine of Rp10 million;
Any person who intentionally accesses, obtains or provides information that could threaten national defense and security or harm national economic resilience shall be sentenced to a maximum of three years in jail and a maximum fine of Rp20 million;
Any person who intentionally produces public information that is untrue or misleading and causes harm to another person shall be sentenced to a maximum of one year in jail and a maximum fine of Rp5 million

Tempo Magazine, No. 32/VIII/8-14 April, 2008