The House of Representatives' approval Tuesday of a bill on witness and victim protection hopefully will go a long way toward strengthening the legal system's ability to fight such major crimes as corruption, human rights violations, terrorism, illegal logging, gambling and smuggling.

In the past lawmakers seemed to have focused on the legal protection of the perpetrators of such crimes, presumably with the objective of upholding the principle of presumption of innocence, while neglecting the protection of witnesses and victims.

But fair legal trials, which are a requirement and a basic principle of universal human rights and a basic characteristic of a democratic nation, depend primarily on the evidence presented at the trials, including the testimony of witnesses and victims. Witnesses and victims, therefore, play a key role in determining the course of court proceedings.

In the past, many cases of corruption, human rights violations and other major crimes could not be resolved or were thrown out due to a lack of evidence from witnesses and victims, who often were reluctant or afraid to testify in high-profile cases because of pressure or threats from the powerful parties involved.

But the new law will provide witnesses and victims the protection they need against physical and psychological threats from person or persons related to the testimony they will give. Under the law, witnesses and victims also are entitled to legal advice and new identities, relocation and reimbursement for expenses, as necessary. These rights also are provided to the families of witnesses and victims in some cases.

An independent Witness and Victim Protection Agency will be established within one year to enforce the law. The agency will consist of members of the National Police, Justice and Human Rights Ministry, Attorney General's Office and human rights organizations, and the agency will be accountable directly to the president.

Though the law does not explicitly define whistle-blowers as witnesses, the law will bolster the campaign against corruption by encouraging officials to report to the authorities any evidence of wrongdoing, even when it involves their superiors. This law, together with the corruption and money laundering laws, will greatly strengthen the legal framework for fighting corruption and various other forms of white-collar crime.

However, the effectiveness of the new law will still depend mainly on the resources and authority the Witness and Victim Protection Agency receives from the government, and on the support and cooperation of other state agencies.

Enacting a law is one thing, but enforcing it is quite another. We are all too familiar with laws that are conceptually excellent, but fail to achieve their objectives either due to inadequate institutional capacity or an acute lack of political leadership on the part of the government, including the House, to get things done.

Take, for example, the money laundering law of 2002, which on paper looks like effective legislation for combating corruption because it places the burden of proof on the defendants.

Sadly, though, not a single person has been brought to court on charges of money laundering since the law was passed, even though the Financial Transaction Reports Analysis Center (PPATK) – the financial intelligence unit set up to enforce the law – has over the past four years filed more than 450 money laundering cases with the police for further investigation and eventual prosecution.

The money laundering law is truly an important component of Indonesia's fight against corruption, tax evasion and numerous other crimes. Because the crimes covered by the law are so diverse, it should allow the fight against money laundering to hit almost all major sources of dirty money, from corruption, drug trafficking, smuggling, gambling and banking crimes, to terrorism and the trafficking of women and children.

In theory, the law should have made it extremely difficult for embezzlers, tax evaders and other big criminals to bring their ill-gotten money into the legal financial system. But an acute lack of cooperation from the police and other law enforcement agencies has turned the law into a piece of toothless legislation.

The government, which has yet to issue the necessary regulations for the implementation of the law on witness and victim protection, or establish the Witness and Victim Protection Agency, should learn some very big lessons from the ineffectiveness of the PPATK financial intelligence unit.

Whether the new law will really be effective in providing protection for witnesses and victims will depend on the resources the agency receives from the government and the support of other government institutions.