Aristo Marisi Adiputra Pangaribuan

This article is published by Pedoman news on 28 November 2011 : http://pedomannews.com/opini/berita-opini/politik/9034-lupakan-saja-debat-usang-mengenai-international-criminal-court

 

Panasnya situasi Papua belakangan ini memicu para aktivis Hak Asasi Manusia (“HAM”) untuk menyuarakan kembali perlunya Peradilan Pidana Internasional atau International Criminal Court (“ICC”) sebagai badan peradilan internasional independen untuk melakukan investigasi dan mengadili dugaan pelanggaran HAM berat di tanah Papua.

Permasalahan Hak Asasi Manusia di Papua juga ramai dibahas di Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi ASEAN 2011 yang diselenggarakan di Bali. Agenda pembahasan antara lain mengenai bagaimana memerangi tindakan kriminal berat dan pelanggaran HAM yang terjadi di Asia Tenggara dan membahas kemungkinan komunitas ASEAN untuk mengadopsi International Criminal Court ke dalam sistem hukum mereka sebagai instrument untuk mengatasi maraknya pelanggaran HAM yang terjadi. Sejauh ini, baru Kamboja, Filipina dan Timor Leste di antara Negara ASEAN lainnya yang meratifikasi serta mengkodifikasi Statuta Roma, dasar hukum dibentuknya ICC, ke dalam hukum positif mereka. Tercatat 119 negara dari 196 negara di dunia sudah meratifikasi statuta Roma.

Pro dan Kontra

Di lain sisi, aktivis HAM cenderung untuk mendukung Indonesia untuk meratifikasi Statuta Roma, agar dugaan tindakan pelanggaran HAM berat yang terjadi di Indonesia dapat diadili secara independen.

Suara yang menentang ICC biasanya berargumen bahwa tidak boleh ada “campur tangan asing” dalam kekuasaan yudisial nasional, yang mengakitbatkan kedaulatan hukum Indonesia akan menjadi berkurang, kalau tidak bisa dibilang “terancam”. Henry Kissinger, mantan secretary of state, security advisor dan kepala tim investigasi tragedi 9/11 Amerika Serikat adalah salah satu tokoh yang berada di barisan depan dalam menentang ICC. Kissinger tidak setuju dengan konsep “universal crimes punishable in an international court” .

Di Indonesia, polemik mengenai perlu-tidaknya campur tangan badan peradilan ICC sudah ramai diperdebatkan beberapa tahun ke belakang. Prof Hikmahanto Juwana pada tahun 2009 di sebuah tulisan di media nasional, mengatakan, bahwa Indonesia tidak memerlukan kehadiran ICC, karena badan peradilan yang ada sekarang sudah menunjukan peningkatan yang signifikan.

Negara-negara seperti Sudan, Libya, Kongo, Uganda, Kenya dan Pantai Gading adalah contoh negara yang kedaulatan hukumnya “diintervensi” oleh ICC.

Sebenarnya, negara tidak perlu merasa terancam dengan kehadiran ICC. Adapun ICC menganut asas complementarity principle yang tertuang dalam pasal 17 statuta Roma, dimana yurisdiksinya hanya akan dapat diaktivasi apabila suatu negara gagal menegakkan hukumnya terhadap tindak kriminal dan pelanggaran HAM berat (unable and unwilling).

Konsep Yurisdiksi Universal ICC

Konsep yurisdiksi universal yang ditawarkan oleh ICC, sebenarnya bukanlah hal yang baru. Peradilan Nuremberg untuk para penjahat perang NAZI Jerman, Peradilan Militer Timur Jauh (International Military Tribunal For the Far East) yang digelar untuk mengadili penjahat perang Jepang di perang dunia ke-2, Peradilan internasional untuk Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal For Former Yugoslavia), Peradilan internasional untuk Rwanda, Sierra Leone sampai peradilan untuk diktator Chili, Augusto Pinochet adalah merupakan embrio lahirnya ICC. Perlu dicatat, dalam konsep yurisdiksi universal, Belgia sudah terlebih dahulu menerapkannya ke dalam sistem hukum nasional mereka.

Awalnya, Indonesia telah merencanakan untuk meratifikasi Statuta Roma, dasar hukum ICC, untuk dikodifikasi sebagai hukum positif pada tahun 2004 melalui Keputusan Presiden (Keppres) No 40 tahun 2004. Akan tetapi, rencana tersebut ditunda oleh pemerintah sampai tahun 2013 karena rencana tersebut perlu dikaji lebih dalam implementasinya.

Debat Yang Sudah Usang

Pembahasan mengenai perlu tidaknya Indonesia untuk meratifikasi Statuta Roma mungkin sudah usang. Faktanya, 119 dari 196 negara di dunia telah mengadopsi ICC sebagai instrument untuk memerangi pelanggaran HAM berat yang terjadi di negara mereka.

Apapun argumentasinya, nyatanya Indonesia sudah mengeluarkan Keppres untuk mengkodifikasi statuta Roma ke dalam hukum positif kita. Terlebih lagi, Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia (Komnasham) dan komisi-komisi lainya yang ditugaskan untuk mengatasi dan merespons tindak kriminal dan pelanggaran ham berat tidak punya “gigi” dalam sistem hukum kita untuk melakukan penyidikan.

Bagaimanapun, tindak kriminal berat dan pelanggaran HAM adalah “the crime of crime” yang harus diperangi oleh seluruh umat manusia yang ada di seluruh dunia. /Permasalahan yang relevan saat ini untuk dibahas adalah bagaimana dengan sisa waktu yang ada, Indonesia dapat meratifikasi statuta Roma melalui persiapan yang matang. Siapkah Indonesia?

Pertanyaan inilah yang harus dijawab agar supaya kedaulatan hukum kita dalam implementasinya sebisa mungkin tidak “terancam” dan kita tidak perlu “dibantu” untuk menegakkan hukum yang berkaitan dengan tindak kriminal berat dan pelanggaran HAM. Persiapan sebelum meratifikasi statuta Roma menjadi permasalahan yang paling relevan dan kompleks untuk dibahas.

Permasalahan pertama, adalah peningkatan kualitas dan kuantitas penyidikan terhadap kasus-kasus dugaan pelanggaran HAM berat. Peningkatan kualitas penyidikan ini harus dilihat dari sistem hukum positifnya serta aparat penegak hukumnya.

Setumpuk pekerjaan rumah untuk para penyidik, Polisi dan Kejaksaan juga harus mulai diselesaikan dengan sungguh-sungguh. Patut diingat, Kepolisian dan Kejaksaan masih punya setumpuk “pekerjaan rumah” untuk diselesaikan. Walaupun ICC tidak menganut asas retroaktif, akan tetapi kita harus menunjukkan bahwa kita tidak perlu dibantu untuk menegakkan hukum yang seadil-adilnya terhadap kasus-kasus tindak kriminal berat dan pelanggaran HAM yang terjadi di teritorial kita sendiri.

Apabila tidak, Pasal 17 Statuta Roma memberikan kekuasaan bagi Jaksa ICC untuk mengambil alih proses penyidikan karena negara dianggap tidak mampu untuk menegakkan hukum. Tentunya kebanyakan orang, termasuk saya, pasti tidak setuju bahwa kita harus “dibantu” untuk menegakkan hukum. Kalau itu terjadi, hilanglah kedaulatan hukum kita.

Kemudian masalah minimnya advokat Indonesia yang menaruh konsentrasi terhadap ICC. Pasal 22 dalam Hukum Acara ICC (Rule 22 Of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence) dan Bab IV Peraturan Peradilan ICC Pasal 67-70 (Regulations Of the Court) mewajibkan persyaratan yang ketat untuk dapat menjadi advokat (Defense Counsel) untuk dapat diperbolehkan beracara di ICC. Artinya, apabila suatu saat ada tersangka/terdakwa dari Indonesia, maka bisa jadi dia tidak bisa diwakili oleh advokat dari Indonesia karena tidak memenuhi persyaratan tersebut.

Permasalahan ini menjadi permasalahan klasik beracara di ICC. Ambil contoh, defense counsel untuk terdakwa Abdallah Banda dan Saleh Jerbo (pemimpin oposisi yang memberontak terhadap pemerintah Sudan di Darfur) mengalami banyak kendala berkomunikasi dalam persidangnya, serta dalam menganalisis fakta-fakta yang terjadi karena masalah bahasa. Hampir tidak ada ahli hukum Sudan yang dapat membantu rekan senegaranya.

Sangat mungkin terjadi, karena masalah bahasa, sehingga hubungan advokat dengan klien menjadi berjarak dan kesulitan dalam menggali fakta-fakta yang ada di lapangan. Hal ini tidak boleh dianggap enteng, karena dapat menjadi penghalang untuk menegakkan hak-hak tersangka/terdakwa di depan peradilan.

Belum lagi, masalah awamnya sistem peradilan yang dianut oleh ICC. Sistem peradilan di ICC, adalah sistem peradilan yang unik dan belum pernah diadopsi dimanapun, karena merupakan gabungan (hybrid) antara sistem Common Law dan Civil Law dan melalui proses kompromi yang sangat panjang dalam pembentukannya.

Persiapan haruslah benar-benar dilakukan dengan sungguh-sungguh, organisasi advokat, kalangan akademisi/universitas dan tentunya pemerintah dengan aparatur pembuat dan penegak hukum haruslah memperhatikan benar hal ini, agar supaya ratifikasi dan kodifikasi ke dalam sistem hukum nasional dapat dilakukan secara tepat dan sebisa mungkin tidak membuat kedaulatan hukum kita terancam.

Target untuk meratifikasi statuta Roma di tahun 2013, yang berarti 2 tahun dari sekarang, adalah jangka waktu yang pendek. Akan tetapi, bukan berarti kita tidak bisa melaksanakannya. Persiapan yang sudah dimulai oleh kalangan aktivis dan Komnasham beberapa tahun ke belakang, harus lebih mendapatkan perhatian pemerintah. Meratifikasi serta mengkodifikasi statuta Roma ke dalam sistem hukum nasional dapat dijadikan langkah awal bagi Indonesia yang demokratis dimana rule of law senantiasa dikedepankan. Yang penting, jangan sampai kedaulatan hukum kita menjadi terancam karena kurangnya persiapan yang matang

Film dokumenter “Sang Ahmad” yang saya buat bersama dengan Mahatma Putra serta teman-teman dari Pemuda Indonesia Progresif, yang menyerukan perdamaian antar umat beragama di Indonesia yang mengangkat isu Ahmadiyah sebagai tema utama, dinominasikan oleh Golden Lens Award dan akan diputar di:

Auditorium Erasmus Huis (15-19 November 2011) Jalan HR Rasuna Said, Kav S-3 Kuningan, Jakarta Selatan.Tel (021) 524 1069

(an old article responding 2010 House Of Representatives Recommendation concerning Century bank bailout)

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono mentioned in his speech following the House of Representatives recommendations over the century bank bailout that the bailout policy was the right choice and such choice was justifiable given the circumstances. The president said that the decision which was taken at the height of the global financial crisis in late 2008 was the quick response that was desperately needed. Therefore, the decision makers should not be subject to criminal charges.

The president himself even backed his two top aides in a televised speech to the nation by stating that Boediono and Sri Mulyani deserved thanks for “outstanding service” in averting a banking crisis. “Indonesia was lucky to have had Sri Mulyani and Boediono in charge when the global financial crisis hit, as both have “spotless track records in terms of competence, credibility, and personal integrity.” he said.

Let’s highlight the president’s statement.

The message from the president is clear: Is it fair to have our decision makers subjected to ridicule, shame and even criminal charges when they had the country’s best interest at heart? The House’s answers might yet result in government’s ability to deliver much-needed policies in the longer term. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives has chosen to ridicule the Century Bank bailout policy as it had covered up irregularities, violations of banking regulations and criminal laws such as corruption.

Therefore, according to the recommendations of the House’s inquiries committee , the bailout decision could be the subject of criminal charges.

Based on the doctrine from common law, the ingredient that must be present for there to be criminal charges is the“Mens rea” which in English means “guilty mind”. The use of ”Mens Rea” shows that the prerequisite for an action to be the subject of criminal charges is related to the state of mind.

The concept of mens rea was developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to judge that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind which can be translated as an “evil intention”. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which means “the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind isi proven guilty.

Mens rea or the “evil intention” is the mental element that produces criminal liability when combined with “Actus Reus” or can be translated as “guilty act” as a physical element. The word “evil intention” tells what kind of mental state an accused must have been in to fulfill the prerequisite of the criminal charges.

A fundamental principle of criminal charges is that a crime consists of both mental and  physical elements. Sometimes a law creates criminal liabilities for the conduct or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. This is known as strict liability.

Possibilities that the decision shall be criminalized still exist. The explanations above alone, does not determine the decision can not be the subject of criminal charges. Prof Hikmahanto Juwana, law professor from University Of Indonesia, once said should the decisions be deemed as a criminal act, the enactment of those decisions must comprised of mens rea or evil intentions behind those decisions.

If the evil intention on the accusation can not be fulfilled, such could be grounds for exemption of the decision the criminal charges liabilities (schuldduitsluitingsgrond). We generally do not punish people for a criminal act if they do something that they could not control.

Our Anti Corruption law is defined by statutes that contain a word and phrase indicating the mens rea requirement that require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly. Therefore, the subject of corruption charges requires a mens rea or “evil intention”.

Given those ideas, once again, it would be interesting to question Boediono, Sri Mulyani  and officials from KSSK, BI, LPS for their mens rea or “evil intention” behind their decision to rescue the troubled Bank Century and its subsequent management of bailout funds, which folded up to more than $700 million.

There are deep differences between wrongdoing and delictual action (criminal action).  When the “evil intention” behind the enactment of decision is not fulfilled, it would be merely an administrative wrongdoing.

The administratively wrongdoing can not be the subject of criminal charges. If there are administrative mistakes and deviations of the bailout policy, it is the domain of state administration law, and the sanction is merely administrative.

The debate about criminalization of decision has mirrored a deep divide in our nation following the bailout scandal. Is there any so-called “evil intention” behind the disbursement which folds up to ten times from the original estimate? Are there any criminal acts involved behind the enactment of decision?

The President said that the decision over century case should not be subject to criminal charges. On the contrary, the decision taken by the House’s plenary where it chose Option C stated that there were criminal violations in the extension of the Bank Century bailout amounting to $700 million.

However, according to our distribution of power governance system, it is not the president and parliament business to give judgement over the bailout decision.  The House’s right to investigate (hak angket) is not the “trial” for deciding the “evil intention” behind the enactment of decision.

The “idea” of the house’s special committee is to prove the “evil intention” behind the bailout decision. . Such “evil intention” are allegations that there were flows of funds from the bailout disbursement to a certain political party for election campaign.

Moreover, some lawmakers confidently believe in the occurrence of an “evil intention” behind the bailout policy. Starting from the recording of a conservation between Sri Mulyani and the disgraced century bank former owner, Robert Tantular at the meeting to  the allegation that there were flow of funds to certain politician.

Those allegations were never proved so it turns out to be “a political idol contest” session by posing “unsubstantial questions” apparently just to ensure that they would appear on live television. Based on a survey conducted by the chamber of public research on 19-21 Febuary 2010, 52.5 percent of respondents view that House Inquiry Committee worked only for political interest; while only 34.2 percent view that the lawmakers worked for the nation’s sake.

But still, despite the failure of the House to prove their allegations of evil intention, 325 members of House of Representatives still insist that the government’s decisions to inject the bailout was illegal and there is an indication of corruption.

Is it appropriate that the clashes of opinion between the term of “systemic threat” and “non-systemic threat” in bank Century’s failure as a form of criminal act? Despite the fact that after the bailout policy was taken, today our state budget is one of the best in the world and one of the best-growing countries who can survive the global crisis.

Although the House’s ruling isn’t legally binding, the fact that some lawmakers threatened to withhold funding for the state antigraft body if it failed to quickly follow up their recommendations can be considered as a” threat” to justice. The “threats” are not only for the antigraft body, but also for the finance minister. Some lawmakers threatened to boycott Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati’s appearance at the House of Representatives.

Replying to the house The state antigraft agency has said that they have to abide the principle of legal proof in the criminal process and therefore they need to collect enough pieces of evidence. They would not depend on the findings of the House committee recommendations because the House’s recommendation lacked compelling evidence and would be difficult to follow up.

 

Afterall, who has the “evil intention” ? You decide.

 

this article is published by Hukum Online :  http://en.hukumonline.com/pages/lt4e43a600e0be4/rethinking-the-criminal-justice-system-in-indonesia

In the Indonesian criminal saga, a mother of two who sends her friends an email complaining about her treatment at a local hospital can be found guilty of libel and face a prison time. This is what happened to Prita Mulyasari. After her email went viral, Prita faced civil and criminal actions and was eventually given a suspended sentence of six months in jail, by the Supreme Court.

Despite strong public opinion favoring Prita, Supreme Court Judges insisted that Prita was guilty of libel against Tangerang’s Omni International Hospital, under the Electronic Transaction and Information Law. The prosecutor in the case was quoted as saying, “I’m just doing my duty in following legal procedure.” When asked why, despite district court acquittals, he insisted on proceeding with Prita’s case.

The prosecutions approach to the case and the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling has raised many eyebrows. Looking at Prita’s situation, one may ask whether her punishment is representative of our so-called “justice value” in Indonesian society and whether Prita’s actions deserve to be criminalized.

However, it is clear that both the judges and prosecutors who handle Prita’s case believe that the central concern of upholding the law and justice is retribution. Followers of this Mesopotamian age doctrine, often see a law as a “tool” to punish people, although punishment must be imposed solely for the sake of ensuring public justice.

This approach to justice explains why prosecutors continued their case against Prita after her district court acquital, even though Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that no legal actions are available after a district court acquittal. Legal enforcers focused on punishment and retribution are able to avoid Article 244’s limitations by arguing a “legal innovation to ensure public justice” (as stated in Minister of Justice Decree No. 14-PW.07.03 of 1983).

We have seen similar casesof overzealous prosecution. Do you remember the poor illiterate elderly woman who was charged and prosecuted in court for picking up 3 scattered cocoa pods? Or the elderly Indonesian maid who was persecuted for stealing an ox-tail? How about the criminal charges against an elderly widow of an independence hero who was accused of illegally occupying a house owned by the state?

All of these cases lead back to the fundamental question of whether a given act should be punished. It is time to reconsider criminal punishment as a last resort or ultimum remedium.

When legal enforcers were deciding whether Prita’scase should be brought to trial, they forgot to think about the social justice concept of criminal law before resorting to criminal punishment.

What is social justice? In the words of William C Heffernan,an associate professor from the New York John Jay College of Criminal Justice, when we talk about social justice in upholding criminal law, we must ask whether the burdens and benefits of social life have been fairly distributed among members of a particular society.

In a lecture published by the Southern California Law Review, David Bazelon, a former US Court of Appeals Judge, said that “there can be no truly just criminal law in the absence of social justice”.

Upholding criminal justice while considering social justice has important implications for different facets of criminal justice such as criminal procedure, excuses, and justifications.

Former Supreme Court Chief Judge, Professor Bagir Manan seems to agree with this conception of a criminal-social justice system. From the beginning, he argued that Prita’s case must be halted, because prosecutors and judges failed to recognize Prita’s basic rights as a citizen to freely communicate and express her opinion about the hospital’s service.

Integrating social justice principles into the criminal justice system does not mean that the law must bow to public pressure. Legal enforcers, especially judges, must rely on broadly accepted, authoritative criteria to determine what constitutes the law. The difficulty, of course, is that for conceptions of social justice, our legal enforcers have limited authoritative criterion to rely on.

In fact, our legal system is already open tothe possibility of integratingsocial justice concepts. Under the Law No. 49 of 2009 on Judicial Authority, Article 5 clearly states that in deciding a case, judges are entitled to employ social values that are rooted in the public community to resolve acase.

As a legal practitioner, I am no longer shocked by the cases that appear in our beloved country. In my opinion, a poor and non-merit based recruitment process for legal enforcers is the main source of the problem. Please, fix this first before talking about complicated legal issues.

I believe that when legal enforcers are able to employ social justice concepts there will be no more controversial issues such as the Prita and the elderly woman case.

It has become clear that a legitimate, competent and authoritative legal institution must exist in order to build a criminal system based on social justice concepts. Furthermore, the key lies in judges who hold the legal authority to impose a binding decision in a legal case.

It is time to answer my fundamental question about whether Prita’s action of complaining about hospital service via email deserves to be punished. My answer is: it depends on who you are asking.

(Tulisan ini sebenarnya dimuat pada awal tahun 2011, pada saat Kejaksaan Agung melakukan deponeering terhadap kasus Bibit Chandra, hanya baru dipublish pada tanggal di atas)

Kejaksaan Agung memang telah final memutuskan untuk mengesampingkan perkara (deponeering) terhadap dua wakil ketua KPK Chandra-Bibit dengan alasan demi kepentingan umum dan sebagai upaya pemerintah untuk memberantas korupsi. Sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Kejaksaan Pasal 35 huruf c, Jaksa Agung memang mempunyai hak istimewa untuk mengesampingkan perkara dan tidak melanjutkan proses hukum berdasarkan penilaian subjektif adanya kepentingan publik yang terusik apabila proses penuntutan dilanjutkan.

Setidaknya ada enam fraksi yang ada di Komisi III DPR-RI bersuara keras menentang penggunaan hak istimewa Jaksa Agung tersebut.  Mereka yang menolak menganggap bahwa proses hukum terhadap Bibit-Chandra harus dilanjutkan karena merupakan perintah pengadilan melalui putusan pra-peradilan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan dan pengunaan hak istimewa tersebut telah merusak tatanan hukum. Yang mendukung, menyatakan mereka menghargai hak subjektif kejaksaan untuk mengangap bahwa ada kepentingan umum yang terancam dan deponeering tersebut dikeluarkan dalam rangka mendukung upaya pemerintah untuk memberantas korupsi.

Dualisme peran Kejaksaan

Melihat kasus ini ke belakang, Jaksa Agung sebelumnya, Hendarman Supandji, menyatakan berkas kasus Bibit-Chandra sudah lengkap dan siap dilimpahkan. Putusan pra-peradilan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan juga menyatakan agar proses hukum kasus Bibit-Chandra dilanjutkan. Anggota dewan yang menolak, menggunakan fakta-fakta tersebut untuk menolak deponeering. Puncaknya, Bibit dan Chandra ditolak kehadirannya pada saat menghadiri rapat dengar pendapat dengan Komisi III karena walaupun ada deponeering, sebagian anggota dewan tersebut tetap menganggap status hukum keduanya belum jelas. (31/1).

Sumber pemicu kontroversi tersebut jelas disebabkan oleh dualisme peran kekuasaan tersebut (hybrid authority) kejaksaan yang diwujudkan dalam pengunaan hak istimewa berupa deponeering.

Di satu sisi, kejaksaan adalah alat eksekutif untuk menegakkan hukum, namun di sisi lain dengan hak istimewa yang diberikan kepadanya, kejaksaan juga dapat mengambil peran yudisial yang seharusnya independen (judicial role) melalui prinsip oportunitas (principle of discretionary power)

Prinsip Oportunitas

Prinsip oportunitas tersebut pertama kali dikenal dari Code d’Instructive Criminalle (Code of Criminal Procedure) dan Kode Penal (Penal Code) Perancis yang kemudian masuk kedalam hukum acara pidana Belanda. Mengutip tulisan dari ahli hukum Frans Hendra Winarta, prinsip tersebut sehari-hari dikenal dalam bahasa Prancis sebagai ”seponer” atau dalam Bahasa Belanda sebagai ”seponeren” (menyisihkan), yang berarti menyingkirkan suatu kasus (perkara) dan juga berarti keputusan untuk tidak menuntut suatu kasus (perkara) atau classer sans suite (take no further action) karena adanya kepentingan umum yang lebih besar.

Fenomena ini sangat menarik untuk dibahas, dengan terlebih dahulu menyingkirkan segala muatan politik yang ada.

Pembatasan Diskresi

Bahwa pemerintah, dalam hal ini pemegang kekuasaan eksekutif, pada dasarnya akan selalu mempunyai “kepentingan” terhadap penegakan hukum. Oleh karena itu, dalam suatu sistem tata negara yang mengakui adanya prinsip pembagian dan distribusi kekuasaan, pembatasan kewenangan antara eksekutif dan yudikatif adalah hal yang mutlak diperlukan. Hal ini bertujuan untuk membangun suatu rezim yang demokratis dan bukan totalitarian.

Di Negara asalnya, prinsip oportunitas itu tidak lagi dijalankan secara mutlak. Sejak tahun 1993, UU Kejaksaan di Perancis telah mewajibkan kejaksaan melalui Menteri Hukum untuk menjelaskan kepada publik alasan lengkap dan jelas kenapa kejaksaan memilih untuk mengesampingkan penuntutan sebuah kasus karena kepentingan umum. Definisi kepentingan umum terlebih dahulu harus dijelaskan secara detail kepada publik.

Apabila alasan tersebut tidak memuaskan semua pihak, disediakan ruang bagi publik untuk menggugat pengunaan prinsip tersebut ke pengadilan.

Contoh lain lagi di Belgia, diskresi kejaksaannya dengan jelas dibatasi di dalam General Principle State Prosecutor yang menyatakan “The public prosecution office may never usurp the right to become the judge on the desirability of the law”. Tujuannya jelas, bahwa jangan sampai terjadi dualisme kekuasaan kejaksaan.

Berkaca dari kasus Bibit-Chandra

Dari pengalaman kasus Bibit-Chandra setidaknya kita melihat adanya dualisme kekuasan yang memang “direstui” oleh sistem hukum kita melalui UU kejaksaan.

Di satu sisi, menurut UU Kejaksaan kita, kejaksaan adalah alat eksekutif yang tidak independent. Karena sifatnya adalah alat penguasa untuk memastikan penegakan hukum berjalan dengan semestinya.

Namun di sisi lain,  kejaksaan juga berperan sebagai “hakim” dengan pengunaan hak oportunitasnya untuk memutuskan secara final bahwa sebuah perkara layak untuk dihentikan walaupun terdapat cukup bukti (take no further action).

Tidak seperti di Perancis ataupun di Belgia, dalam sistem hukum kita, tidak ada ruang publik untuk menggugat prinsip oportunitas tersebut. Sifatnya final dan mutlak harus diterima semua pihak.

Atas dasar alasan inilah deponeering kasus Bibit-Chandra menjadi kontroversi yang kemudian berujung pengusiran terhadap keduanya.

Agar di kemudian hari hybridnya kekuasaan kejaksaan agung ini tidak menimbulkan kontroversi baru dan membuat institusi kejaksaan menjadi totalitarian, UU Kejaksaan haruslah segera dirubah.

Kekuasaan kejaksaan sebagai alat eksekutif yang sewaktu-waktu dapat mencampuri kekuasaan yudisial haruslah segera dibatasi. Harus ada ruang publik yang disediakan bagi mereka yang tidak puas atas “hasil keputusan” jaksa.

Kemudian, wacana Presiden untuk melakukan penguatan Komisi Kejaksaan haruslah segera direalisasikan. Komisi Kejaksaan mutlak diperlukan dalam rangka pengawasan kepada institusi kejaksaan. Mutlak tidak ada jalan lain, karena seperti apa yang dikatakan Montesquieu, prinsip yang paling efektif dalam rangka menjalankan fungsi pengawasan adalah Power checks power.

This time,  with my fellow friends (thanks to Mahatmaputra.com) we made independent documentary film responding a  various attack targeting minority groups in Indonesia esp. Ahmadiyah dubbed  “Sang Ahmad”

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/wheres-the-public-justification-in-ostracizing-ahmadiyah/410838

In the most recent example of religious intolerance targeting a minority group in Indonesia, an armed mob attacked an Ahmadiyah mosque in South Jakarta last Friday. This was yet another wound for the Ahmadis, who have experienced hundreds of attacks in various places.

Our government seems reluctant to act on behalf of these minorities.

No one is ever convicted for ransacking and destroying Ahmadi mosques or homes.

It is not surprising to me because in 2008 the minister of religious affairs, the home minister and the attorney general essentially “endorsed” such actions by placing the blame on Ahmadis for failing to halt their religious activities.

Cabinet ministers even provided a “solution” to end the controversy by enacting a 2008 joint ministerial decree that prohibits Ahmadis from performing their religious services in public, because Ahmadiyah is considered a deviant sect of Islam.

Furthermore, the government is now discussing strengthening the legal status of the decree by turning it into state legislation (Undang-undang ).

Rights activists claim that such actions violate freedom of religion.

This has become a hot topic. Does the government have the right to interfere with a citizen’s private beliefs?

This kind of dispute does not just happen in Indonesia.

In the United States, the proselytizing of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect has been restricted, partly because the group bans blood transfusions for its members, which has led to an outcry over children’s health.

The legalization of gay marriage in the United States is another case, as is the ban on wearing the full Islamic veil in public in France.

Nevertheless, I believe that in some cases the state does have the discretion to interfere with private beliefs to promote a broader “good” and to maintain order as a nation in general.

But what our government has forgotten is the role of explaining and justifying a given action that might be for the good of society.

The government, in deciding to restrict Ahmadiya’s actions, is acting on the basis of “good” religious doctrine.

The action was taken merely because Ahmadiyah tenets contradict the majority view of Islam.

The United States and France both use this discretion largely on the basis of health, security, community standards or nationalism rather than religious values.

Is this a sounder public justification?

Professor Gerald F. Gaus, from the University of Pittsburgh (Value and Justification: 1990), argues that in order to create public justification, a state action must be neutral toward different conceptions of the good.

A ban on the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the US state of Ohio was overturned in court because there was no sufficient public justification and it was deemed unconstitutional.

Public justification plays an indispensable role in the practice of democratic citizenship.

For Indonesia, which often goes on about its being the world’s third-biggest democracy, this requirement is extremely important.

If the term “public justification” seems too abstract, just ask the three ministers who enacted the joint decree how they would feel if the state used its power to prevent them from doing something they believed to be essential to their quality of life, without providing an adequate reason.

The use of coercive power itself is suspect in this case.

The “joint ministerial decree” is unknown in our legal hierarchy.

But the government is adamant this action is necessary to maintain “public order.”

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is the task of the courts to balance the state’s interest in restricting Ahmadiyah’s actions against the group’s inherent right to practice its beliefs.

It is imperative for the judges to make sure that the state is not acting for the wrong reasons and has provided a public justification for its action.

However, it is also true that in April 2010, the Constitutional Court declined to void the 1965 Blasphemy Law, which serves as the basis for the government entering the domain of religion.

The court rejected a motion for a judicial review, lodged by former President Abdurrahman Wahid and others, on the ground that the state needs to have this discretion to prevent turmoil and anarchy.

What makes it more confusing is that the joint ministerial decree cannot itself be tested in court.

Constitutional Court Chief Justice Mahfud MD was quoted as saying that the vague status of the decree makes it hard to challenge.

The bottom line is that our “third-largest democracy” has failed to produce a sufficient public justification for the use of its political power against a minority religion.

From what I understand, in a democracy, the citizen is entitled to an explanation when the state uses its power of coercion.

Where in the world is our principle of due process of law?

President SBY recently made a state visit to China on 26 October 2010.  He was featured as a keynote speaker in a business forum which was intended to bolster economic cooperation between Indonesia and China.  By visiting Beijing there is much more to be obtained from our former New Emerging Forces ally.

We vividly remember a time when our two countries stood together to form the Jakarta – Peking Axis, dubbed a “New Emerging Forces” (NEFO).  Nowadays, facts on the ground have revealed that we are far behind our former NEFO comrade.  Both countries experienced massive changes within each one and a rocky relationship; from the Great Leap Forward to Reformasi in Indonesia.

Notable is how the Chinese maneuver their country and cling to the Sino Fu Qiang (wealth and power) principle to gain their dignity, international respect and territorial integrity.  China has built a so-called “Beijing Consensus,” a combination of socialist-state capitalism cum semi-democracy which makes them one of the world’s largest economies and enjoys its rising influence on the global platform.

The source of the problem is clear: How both bodies manage their country and stick to their ideology and goals toward the people.  The Chinese, despite allegations that the Beijing Consensus is often declared reclusive and authoritarian, the government steadfastly adheres to their ancestral ideology: the Fu Qiang principle that encapsulates their “informal social contract.”  The Chinese government guarantees its people opportunities to enjoy a high standard of living there.  As a result, China’s current achievements in terms of economics, politics and international influence are extraordinary by any standard.

In the meantime, we Indonesians have our own principles to run our country.  Determined to be the world’s third-largest democracy, we have Pancasila (five pillars of democracy) and 1945’s Basic Constitution as the founding principle of our democracy.  We indeed have such a “contract” to deliver developmental growth and equal opportunities to our constituents.  We even empower our people to have equal opportunities regardless of their financial or political standing.

However, facts on the ground imply quite the opposite.  Behind the mask of democracy, the Ahmadiyah people have become stateless citizens in Indonesia and hardline groups live freely to take the law into their own hands.  Under the guise of supremacy of law, we still see law only applied to the poor and small but they are seemingly navigable for powerful conglomerates, corruptors and massive human rights violators.

Fortunately, I have had the opportunity to meet Sha Pengcheng – a CPC member and Chairman of the Xian Chinese Moslem Chamber Of Commerce in China – and several prominent Chinese Moslem clerics there.  I questioned them concerning the Chinese government’s treatment of them as a minority sect.  Surprisingly, despite allegation that the administration is authoritarian, their adherents feel protected because Beijing puts national interests at heart by firmly implementing their “informal social contract” so as to protect the citizens.  For example, China provides RMB 40b for the first stages of Moslem development in China.

Beijing provides equal opportunity to all citizens so they may enjoy a decent life in China regardless of their individual status.  That is the reason why I believe the effectiveness of a social contract – quoting Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek International Editor- is behind the results of the absence of massive violence in China since Tian An Men tragedy.

Another example of how China upholds its Fu Qiang through their equal sense of justice can be seen from its “predatory” towards citizens regardless of their political standing or power.  For example, China’s retail tycoon, Huang Guangyu (once it wealthiest person and today still near the top) was sentenced to 14 years in prison for insider trading.

 

Have we observed such things within our own borders?  A state that often boasts about its democracy and supremacy of law?  We rolled out the red carpet for BLBI’s disgraced banker. What is saddening is that there are many Indonesian tycoons that are untouchable by enforcement officials in spite of their violations of law being open and blatant.

Yes, we have suffered enough to achieve our democracy and I refuse to say this is not a good thing, but without firmly adhering to our fundamental principles and put the country’s best interests first and foremost, we are merely “trapped” to an “illusion of democracy” often labeled a procedural democracy rather than a substantial one. Most of the recruitment and promotion of the leadership of party members and state leaders is not based on meritocratic aspect. Just see how our lawmakers –the representative of the people- go for overseas comparative study only to delve into the Greek ancient Parliament’s smoking regulations or the political parties under the name of democracy, in real fact turn to be the  “family political empire” parties.

 

We are aware that a high cost has already been paid to our democracy.  We have seen enough of our nation’s drama play out behind a mask of democracy: regional election turmoil, oppression towards minority sects, neglecting to deliver on developmental growth to our citizens, and failure to uphold the principle of the supremacy of law.

Please, Mr. President. Do not let our state “trapped” under the guise of democracy.  We know you are fully aware of this situation.  Put our own Fu Qiang at the forefront and uphold our ancestral ideology: 1945’s Basic Constitution and Pancasila.  Our democracy will be such a grand waste if you can not guarantee citizens’ fundamental rights and needs.

This article was published by JG on 15 Sept 2010:

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/the-thinker-brand-indonesia/396112

Let’s forget the Indonesia-Malaysia border dispute or the arrest of a firebrand Muslim cleric for a while. Now it’s time to shift our thoughts and talk about a rarely mentioned issue: our nation’s branding at the Shanghai World Expo 2010, a grand gathering for the world to boil down the essence of participating countries into a medley of striking pavilions.

Luckily, earlier this month I was given the opportunity (thanks to private company Artha Graha, one of the Indonesia pavilion’s sponsor) to see the world’s largest exhibition fair.

The Indonesia pavilion is the biggest our country has built to promote itself since the New York World’s Fair in 1964.

By erecting it among those of 194 other countries, our government hopes to bring in Rp 1 trillion ($111 million) in future trade and investment while aiming to convey Indonesia’s identity and achievements to the world.

The Indonesia pavilion covers 2,400 square meters and cost an estimated $9 million to build.

It showcases many traditional aspects of our cultures: textiles, foods and coffee, ancient musical instruments and even a sculpture of Admiral Cheng Ho, the Muslim Chinese explorer who ventured to Indonesia.

The structure has a natural feel, built largely out of wood and bamboo. It is one of the 10 most visited pavilions at the Expo.

Despite all this, Indonesia has yet to get its “branding” quite right due to the presentation’s lack of a substantial message about our country.

I don’t know whether its related to our government’s lack of preparation or something else, but the principal message of the Expo — “innovations for better life” — cannot be seen in the our nation’s pavilion.

Many visitors see Indonesia as a primitive country due to the traditional items on display. Of course it’s not inappropriate to display such items, but what’s missing are our new ideas and innovations.

In what amounts to something of a branding competition, there are 195 nations competing to “sell” their country at the World Expo.

The “object of the branding competition,” said John Quelch, a professor at Harvard Business School, is about positioning a particular nation state in the minds of consumers.

Those consumers citizens of other countries, and they could become tourists or even investors.

China, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Iran, Israel and even Kazakhstan, which has been independent for only 19 years, present good examples of how to make the right branding choices.

They do not merely “sell” their past heritage, but they also exhibit their new ideas and innovations in the course of developing their modern civilization.

Portugal provides specific goals for the future, vowing that by 2020 40 percent of its electricity needs will be supplied by water and pointing out its efforts to promote a low-carbon lifestyle.

Denmark promotes itself as a “family” destination by showcasing its cities that are planned for bicyclists and pedestrians rather than cars.

Sweden proposes the idea of “symbiocity” (the city’s symbiosis between innovation and collaboration) through Alfa Laval’s new heat exchange system that provides heating and cooling using heat from industrial waste.

Iran presents its well-developed technology, such as an electrosurgical generator and a thin-disk laser. Israel presents its advanced innovation and inventions, such as a USB disk and microchips.

What are missing in our pavilion is clear: innovation.

Moreover, we have yet to present the world the innovations with which we tackle our nation’s problems, innovations on how we preserve our natural resources, innovations on how we embrace our civilization, innovations on how we deal with the future challenges and innovations on how we guard and protect our diversity in culture.

I believe we have the resources to innovate and propose new ideas.

In fact, we have innovations like a medical biochip by Joko Sasmito, a radio detection and ranging system by Liem Tiang Gwan and aviation ideas by our former president BJ Habibie: the Habibie Factor, Habibie Theorem and Habibie Method. Even innovation on enviromental issues, such as Trembesi tree and Hybrid Paddy.

Big international events like the World Expo are the perfect venue to demonstrate our strengths so that the “consumers of the world” begin to pay attention to Indonesia. Thus, the reluctance to promote our innovation is disappointing.

Still, I believe we can do more and become a “winner” in the branding game in the future.

At least in Shanghai we took steps to build a pavilion that has proved to be one of the event’s most popular draws. The next step: innovation at the World Expo Milan 2015.

Di abad 19, Charles Darwin dalam tulisanya “On the Origin Of Species” pernah mengungkapkan bahwa “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”. Bahwa yang paling peka terhadap perubahan lah yang akan bertahan.[1]

Ketika Darwin berteori tentang “Survival Of The Fittest”[2] Charles Darwin berbicara tentang bagaimana proses adaptasi suatu spesies terhadap perubahan alam yang berubah-rubah menjadi kunci keberhasilan suatu spesies tersebut untuk bertahan, dan bukan dari bentuk atau besarnya spesies tersebut [3]

Ada pesan penting yang dapat diambil dari teori tersebut untuk menjelaskan pembangunan sebuah bangsa:  Untuk menjadi sebuah bangsa yang besar dan berdaulat, kita harus peka terhadap perubahan yang ada, baik dalam kancah pergaulan internasional ataupun nasional. Terutama dalam pergaulan internasional, harus diakui persaingan kepentingan menjadikan teori “Survival Of The Fittest” begitu relevan di dunia internasional dan menjadikan realita yang harus dihadapi.[4]

Cepatnya perubahan kekuataan dunia, ekonomi, politik dan kebudayaan berimbas kepada bangsa kita. Satu contoh nyata: ACFTA[5] yang sudah disepakati sejak tahun 2002 dan sedianya diimplementasikan pada awal tahun 2010, Indonesia tetap menyatakan ketidaksiapannya dengan alasan masalah daya saing. Apakah kita akan tidak siap terus?  [6]

Belum lagi apabila kita bicara masalah-masalah nasional. Lengkaplah sudah alasan mengapa masih terus dibutuhkan perubahan ke arah yang lebih baik.

Faktor yang menjadi penentu adalah “Pembentukan Mentalitas Bangsa” [7]. Bangsa Indonesia harus dapat berpikir progresif dan adaptif. Peka terhadap perubahan dan dapat memberikan solusi sebagai perwujudan dari proses adaptasi menjadi sebuah kewajiban agar kita dapat menjadi bangsa yang maju. Singkatnya dibutuhkan “modernisasi cara berpikir”. [8]

Sejarah telah membuktikan, dengan kerangka berpikir progresif sebuah bangsa menjadi “the Fittest”. Cina, yang sebelumnya negara yang terisolasi dan menganut paham komunis[9], maju karena progresivitas pemikiran yang dibawa oleh Den Xiao Ping[10],  yang memulai perjuangannya di usianya yang sangat muda.[11] Den Xiao Ping membawa progresivitasnya dengan jalan reformasi yang radikal [12].

Cina harus kita akui sudah menjelma sebagai sebuah “spesies” yang paling “peka terhadap perubahan”[13] Padahal, dahulu kita berdiri bersama-sama Cina di era demokrasi terpimpin dengan mendirikan poros Jakarta-Peking yang disegani oleh dunia.[14]. Sekarang?  Kita mengatakan bahwa kita belum siap.

Atau kita bisa juga belajar dari sejarah AS: Pada masa krisis pada tahun 1900-1920, kaum progresif yang dipelopori kaum muda datang membawa solusi: berpikir luas, terbuka, profesional dan memberikan kesempatan yang sama kepada semua orang dengan dilandasi oleh ilmu pengetahuan, kompetensi, teknologi dan sains.[15] Sampai pada akhirnya, menghantarkan pemimpin pergerakan progresif AS, Theodore Roosevelt menjadi presiden termuda sepanjang sejarah AS. [16]

Sejarah di atas telah mengajarkan kita bahwa generasi muda yang progresif menjadi kunci. Sejarah di atas juga telah mengajarkan kita, bahwa sebenarnya kita mampu menjadi “the Fittest” dengan segala potensi yang kita punya. Mari, kita buka wawasan dengan dilandasi  pemikiran progresif dengan basis intelektualitas yang bertujuan untuk membangun bangsa: Interkoneksitas untuk melihat koneksi-koneksi yang ada dalam sebuah perubahan, mengenali dengan cepat perubahan aspek kebangsaan yang terjadi dan merumuskan solusi untuk melangkah maju ke depan sebagai proses adaptasi dari perubahan tersebut. Niscaya, kita akan dapat melakukan “transfer of knowledge” sebagaimana yang dilakukan oleh Cina dan Amerika.

Bung Hatta pernah berkata dalam pidatonya, bahwa generasi muda adalah pelopor setiap perjuangan and harapan bangsa.[17] Kuncinya sekarang, marilah kita mengedukasi diri kita sendiri, membuka wawasan agar tidak “narrow-minded”, percaya bahwa kita sebagai generasi muda adalah pilar perubahan dan  sadar bahwa kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara adalah sesuatu yang dinamis. Bukan hal yang mustahil nanti semua bangsa akan menjadi “antek” kita dan orang akan berhenti menuduh sebaliknya. [18]

Jangan lupa, bahwa perjuangan para pemuda yang berpikiran progresif telah membuahkan reformasi total bagi bangsa Indonesia di tahun 1998. Penting untuk selalu diingat, perjuangan adalah kata awal tanpa akhir.

Bung Karno pun dengan lantang pernah berkata: “Berikan aku satu pemuda, niscaya akan kuguncangkan dunia”. Siapkah kita sebagai generasi muda pelopor perjuangan bangsa untuk mengguncang dunia dan keluar sebagai “Survivor”

---

[1] Darwin, Charles. On The Origin Of Species. 1869.Oxford University Press. UK:1998

[2] Meminjam istilah dari Herbert Spencer,  seorang filsuf Inggris yang mencoba mengaplikasi teori Darwin ke kehidupan Sosial. Bukunya berjudul Principles of Biology (1864).

[3] Ibid

[4] Pati Djalal, Dino. Pemimpin yang Nasionalis dan Internasionalis. http://www.dinopattidjalal.com: 01 April 2008

[5] Asean China Free Trade Agreement. Perjanjian perdagangan bebas antara Cina dan Negara-negara ASEAN termasuk Indonesia.

[6] Lihat Portal Resmi Republik Indonesia. Pemerintah Siapkan Renegosiasi 150 Pos Tarif ACFTA. http://www.indonesia.go.id/id/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11870&Itemid=693

[7]Op.Cit. Pemimpin yang Nasionalis dan Internasionalis

[8] Ibid

[9] Andrew J. Nathan and Robert S. Ross, The Great Wall and the Empty Fortress. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997 hal 21-26.

[10] Hasil reformasi yang dibawa oleh Den Xiao Ping dalam bidang ekonomi: GDP China tumbuh di angka 9.3 percent pada tahun 1979-1993 yang mana rata-rata pertumbuhan ekonomi dunia pada waktu itu hanya 2.6 percent.Kemudian dalam 15 tahun GDP Cina naik 4 kali lipat. Lihat Fei-Ling Wang, “To Incorporate China: A Policy for a New Era,”The Globe and Mail, V21” . Winter, 1998. hal 68

[11] Den Xiao Ping pertama kali bergabung dengan Perkumpulan Pemuda Komunis (Communist Youth League in Europe) pada usianya yang ke 17 pada waktu dia belajar di Perancis pada tahun 1921. Lihat

Evans, Richard. Deng Xiaoping and the Making of Modern China and Hong Kong: East and West Culture Publishing: 1997: hal 44

[12] Den Xiao Ping mereformasi total kebijakan politik Cina yang tertutup, dengan cara membuka wawasan internasionalisasi, menjalin banyak hubungan internasional dan memberikan kesempatan investor asing untuk masuk ke Cina.  Op.Cit The Great Wall and the Empty Fortress

[13] To learn knowledge and truth from the West in order to save China” adalah filosofi yang selalu dipegang oleh Den Xiao Ping

[14] Bung Karno. Demokrasi terpimpin, milik rakyat Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama 2001. hal 16

[15] Hofstadter, Richard. The Progressive Movement: 1900-1915. Touchstone Book: 1986

[16] Lihat US Presidential History on official White House webpages : http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/theodoreroosevelt . Theodore Roosevelt menjabat sebagai presiden pada usianya yang ke 42.2 setelah menggantikan presiden William Mckinley yang dibunuh. Sebelumnya dia menjabat sebagai wakil presiden.

[17] Bung Hatta, Kumpulan Pidato II. Jakarta: Idayu Press.PT & YPS. 1983. hal 17

[18] Op.Cit. Pemimpin yang Nasionalis dan Internasionalis. Mengutip pendapat Dino Patti Djalal, konsep “Zero enemy million friends”.