The group also deems House's virtual deliberation as a legally-defective means to hold a deliberation on a critical draft bill.
"This means the people, in general, are expected not to participate in the draft bill's deliberation, which actually will heavily impact the public. This shows that public participation is merely a formality," said Asep Komarudin from Greenpeace, one of FRI's network of groups.
Asep also noted several statements coming from legislators during the online DPR deliberation that reflected their lack of intention to involve the public; "Like the statement from another DPR member 'we hear from other inputs but not all must be accommodated' which was heard when the deliberation was in process," Asep noted.FRI believes that legislators had violated Article 96 (4) of Law No. 12/2011 stating that each and every draft bill (RUU) deliberation must be easily accessed by members of the public as a form of public participation.
Asep argues that the annulment of any public participation poses a serious implication on the legality of the deliberation and can turn any documents produced by the DPR deliberation invalid.
Other aspects that were seen as a means to heavily reduce public participation in the job creation draft bill deliberation is by kicking out members of the public that have joined the deliberation that was done via chat app Zoom.
Tommy Indriadi from the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) recalled that he was kicked out of the online deliberation and was unable to rejoin after he claims he had been deliberately blocked.