Erwin Cristianson, Ezra Sihite & Ridho Hizbul, Jakarta – Activists are criticizing lawmakers for their lack of support for witnesses, saying they have failed to touch on crucial matters that would provide maximum protection in the witness protection draft bill, which is being deliberated at Commission III of the House of Representatives.

The law on the protection of witnesses and victims, which is currently undergoing revision, fails to detail the support and level of security witnesses and informants should receive, according to legal activist Emerson Yuntho.

"The clause addressing informants and those who step forward to cooperate with the law is insufficient," said Emerson Yuntho, who is a member of the Coalition for the Protection of Witnesses and Victims and head of the legal division at Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW).

The coalition also urged lawmakers to re-evaluate those procedures currently in place that reward witnesses of serious crimes.

"Lawmakers failed to go into detail when explaining each article of the draft bill. They tend to leave them as they are, without making revisions. Also, they tend to focus on the wording of the draft," said Emerson. He added that the document failed to accurately define an informant, describing it only as an individual who reports a crime.

The organization called on the government to pay closer attention to fundamental points in the bill.

"We ask the state to revise the regulation on witnesses and widen its scope to include not only witnesses to criminal cases [reported to the police], but also individuals who step forward to provide testimonies against lawmakers, state-appointed attorneys, members of the General Elections Commission [KPU] and so on," Emerson added.

Reward

The 2006 law also fails to provide detailed explanations on rules and stipulations surround rewards or compensation given to witnesses and informants for their cooperation, according to Emerson.

"The draft bill has not included any special conditions; it only provides general requirements for witnesses who cooperate with law enforcers," he said, adding that the lack of details could be very damaging to a case.

In some criminal cases, the deputy chairman explained, the accused is ordered to pay a hefty fine to the state or monetary compensation to the victim for his crime. However, defense lawyers have been known to take advantage of the lack of details in the 2009 bill, finding a way to convince the judge to excuse the perpetrator from having to pay any fees.

Lili Pintauli Siregar, deputy chairwoman of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK), echoed Emerson's sentiments, saying such weak regulations have in past cases acted as a boomerang by hurting witnesses and rewarding the perpetrator – sometimes, setting him free.

Protection

Emerson also emphasized the importance of an article that would keep the identity of both witnesses and informants strictly confidential in order to prevent retaliatory actions, threats on family members and blackmail.

Any attempt at seeking revenge should be punished with the full extent of the law, he said.

Lily said several articles of the bill "don't elaborate on how the witness protection system should be implemented."

The LPSK deputy chairman added the revision should strengthen the role of law enforcers in providing protection for witnesses and victims involved in all forms of criminal cases, from theft and larceny, to narcotics and acts of terrorism.

Support

Andhi Nirwanto, deputy attorney general for special crimes said his office supports the revision of the 2006 law.

"After years of implementation, we have found that the 2006 law has several loopholes, which have impacted the protection system for witnesses and victims in general. They have also affected the performance of the LPSK," Andhi said.

He added that the revision should aim to encourage the public to step forward and report crimes.

"[The revision] should provide [witnesses] with ample protection so that people would not hesitate to report [an incident] to law enforcers," he said.

"Essentially, the bill should provide sense of security for witnesses, victims and informers and motivate them to testify during the legal process," Andhi added.

According to LPSK chairman Abdul Haris Semendawai, the incoming administration of President-elect Joko Widodo and Vice President-elect Jusuf Kalla has set aims to strengthen the government's role in protecting its citizens.

Abdul said the new bill, if formulated correctly, could be of great help to the state in fighting corruption as it would provide witnesses and informants with a sufficient sense of security.

As deliberations on the 2006 bill continues, suggestions have been raised on increasing the budget for witness protection programs.

"The agency operates on a state budget, which is much less than what is allocated to ministries and other agencies. That makes things difficult for us," Abdul was quoted as saying by newsportal detik.com on Monday.

The government had only earmarked Rp 66.6 billion ($6.7 million) for the agency this year, less than half of the amount allocated last year, when the agency received Rp 148.7 billion.

The LPSK chairman said the agency needed more funds to provide witnesses with medical and psychological services, restitution, compensation and to help witness get their procedural rights.

Teguh Sudarsono, also a deputy chairman of the LPSK, conceded the organization has had to make many adjustments due to budget constraints, including cutting down on the number of safe houses used for witnesses.

Abdul urged the government to provide the LPSK with more funds to improve on the agency's operations.

"The LPSK hopes that there will be no more budget cuts in the future. Please take into consideration the increasing needs for our services for witnesses," the witness protection agency chairman said.

Source: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/lawmakers-urged-revise-problematic-protection-bill/