Febriamy Hutapea – National legislatures come and go, but the outgoing House of Representatives will be long remembered for its handling of a series of bills and vital issues that critics say divided the country in some cases, protected its own political interests in others or failed to challenge powerful Suharto-era figures.
Certainly one of the most controversial and widely publicized pieces of legislation was one of the most recent: the anti-pornography bill, which dates to a 2001 fatwa against pornography by the Indonesian Council of Ulema, or MUI.
There was a heated nationwide debate about the bill, particularly among middle-class intellectuals, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Tens of thousands took part in demonstrations, dialogues and debates in support of and against its passage in the years following the fatwa, which prompted its withdrawal for further revision.
However, and with such little warning that it raised allegations of collusion, the bill was passed by the House in October 2008 and was later signed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Opponents contend that the sudden re-emergence of the controversial bill – long in a limbo due to oftentimes polarizing debates – was a ploy by some political groups to score points with conservative Muslim voters ahead of this year's elections. The law itself is so vague and contradictory that senior police officials have admitted it is impossible to enforce, leading critics to wonder why lawmakers even bothered.
The answer – wooing Muslim voters – also applies to the March 2008 electronic information law, one aim of which was to block pornographic Web sites. While the House could have spent its time and energy on laws improving education standards or lowering infant mortality, lawmakers instead debated this bill, despite the fact that less than 2 percent of Indonesians use the Internet.
Hot on the anti-pornography law's heels, the House endorsed the Supreme Court bill in December. It was criticized for raising justices' retirement age from 65 to 70, which might hamper reforms in the corruption-ridden court.
Many were outraged by its speedy endorsement, while the Judicial Commission bill, which is linked to reforming the Supreme Court, continues to be ignored by lawmakers. "The House has a political interest in endorsing the Supreme Court bill," said Emerson Yuntho, coordinator of legal affairs for Indonesia Corruption Watch. "It will be used to secure the interests of parties or party members who have disputes in the court during the elections."
The House was also criticized after it ended its third session of 2008-09 on March 3 without passing legislation to establish a permanent anti-corruption court, an ad hoc body that handles all cases brought by the Corruption Eradication Commission, or KPK.
The Constitutional Court has ruled the House must pass a new law to make the court permanent by December 2009 or it will be disbanded. There are fears that legislators, who are increasingly being prosecuted by the KPK, will let the deadline pass. Nine former or current lawmakers have been arrested by the KPK (see story on A4).
Given the time and energy spent on politically charged bills, the House has been accused of lacking focus on other urgent matters, including issuing a recommendation for an ad hoc court to try Armed Forces personnel accused of abducting and torturing human rights activists in 1998.
However, the House has also had successes, including passing the new citizenship bill and the antidiscrimination bill, and endorsing important economic legislation, such as the new mining bill. The citizenship bill introduced dual citizenship for children with one non-Indonesian parent, while the antidiscrimination law provides more protections for indigenous cultural communities, minorities and citizens discriminated against because of their racial or ethnic origin.
Nonetheless, Bivitri Susanti, who chairs the Center for Indonesian Law and Policy Studies, said the current House's track record showed that laws were passed based on political interests.
"Many polemics occurred in the deliberation because too many matters were put forward based on each party's interests in the 2009 elections," Bivitri said.
Poor member performance also affected the quality of the laws passed, House Speaker Agung Laksono admitted, pointing to articles in several laws that were struck down by the Constitutional Court. "There are 154 judicial review cases that have been filed with the court since 2003," Agung said.
In many cases, the reviews were filed because stakeholders believed certain articles violated the 1945 Constitution.
Sebastian Salang, chairman of the Forum of Citizens Concerned About the Indonesian Legislature, said only 15 percent of bills deliberated by the House were based on its five-year priority program.
"The rest are not set under the priority program. We call them 'invisible bills' because we don't know where they come from but they get priority," he said, citing dozens of autonomy bills aiming to create new provinces or districts, and the anti-pornography bill.
He also noted that the House spends up to Rp 2 billion ($168,000) to pass a single law, through expenses such as overseas research trips and hiring expert staff, which he said was very expensive.
Many observers expressed pessimism that vitally important bills, such as those on the Anti-Corruption Court and Judicial Commission, would be passed before the current House's term ends in September, because most lawmakers are focused on campaigning ahead of legislative elections on April 9.
Will the new House embrace a reform agenda and bring change we can believe in? One can only hope.