The DPR's Legal Affairs Commission begins selection of candidates for members of the National Human Rights Commission.
Enny Soeprapto was quite self-confident when his turn came to enter the room of the House of Representatives (DPR) Legal Affairs Commission. Wearing a batik shirt and bringing with him a briefcase containing a bundle of articles on human rights, the 74-year-old man tried to sit upright before some 30 members of the Commission. Enny is one of the 43 people currently "fighting" to become a member of the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas Ham) for the 2007-2012 period. Last week Wednesday, Enny-who is presently still a member of Komnas Ham-started to undergo the selection stages in the DPR.
Enny entered the DPR's Legal Affairs Commission room after another candidate, Dian Kartika Sari, was subjected to tests by DPR members for 45 minutes. There were 15 members who questioned the Deputy Director of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development about what he was going to do if selected as one of the 20 members of Komnas Ham. "They questioned me about my mission and vision," said Dian.
Towards Enny, however, the Legal Affairs Commission was tougher. In the eyes of several members of the Commission, Komnas Ham has been nothing but a toothless tiger, which could only "roar" but produced nothing. "If Komnas Ham is just like a toothless tiger, why are you so eager to be nominated member again?" asked Benny K. Harman, a member of the Democrat Party faction. Faced with the scornful question, Enny replied with wide-open eyes. "The one that made it toothless, well, it is the law," he replied.
He followed his answer up with an outline of the "toothlessness" of his institution. As Enny has it, Law No. 39/1999 on Human Rights, which served as basis for the establishment of Komnas Ham, is rife with loopholes. The most fatal consequence of this is that the institution that receives a recommendation from Komnas Ham with respect to the occurrence of a human rights violation is not obliged to make a follow-up on the recommendation. "Ergo, Komnas Ham is toothless," he said. Enny may well have a point. Up to this day, Komnas Ham's recommendations have drawn blanks everywhere, even at the DPR and at the Attorney General's Office (AGO). A number of cases of student activists kidnapping, which Komnas Ham has recommended be acted upon by the AGO, are still unclear as to their fate. And that, while Komnas Ham is convinced that the security apparatus was involved in the disappearance of those activists.
With such obstacles, it should come as no surprise that many are pessimistic that the institution established since 1993 can carry out its function, even should, for instance, all its 20 members, who will have completed their working period next August 30, be replaced. "I am pessimistic that the selection being made by the House will be able to change Komnas Ham's work," said Coordinator of the Commission for Missing Persons & Victims of Violence (Kontras), Usman Hamid.
In Usman's eyes, the basic cause of the institution's weakness is the fact that it was born upon the reaction of the international world to the Santa Cruz incident in East Timor. Consequently, Usman says, its establishment was not really meant to uphold basic human rights. "It was more of a political shield and a symbol of Indonesia's diplomacy in respecting basic human rights," he said.
Usman conceded that the institution's authority is weak in the first place. However, bearing in mind that it was established originally on the basis of a presidential decree (No. 50/1993) and that it now has been "promoted" by being based on a law, it can be said that progress has been made. In Usman's view, when the Law on Basic Human Rights was being drafted, the lawmakers should have provided Komnas Ham with "sharp fangs" like those given to the Corruption Eradication Commission. In that way the institution would have been able to conduct investigations, interrogations, up to and including suing, and "not merely giving recommendations," he said.
Nonetheless, Usman disagreed if Komnas Ham's weak authority is presented as the reason for its not daring to "move aggressively." "Just look. When Komnas Ham conducted an investigation into the East Timor case and the Tanjung Priok case, people had not expected that this institution would be able to work effectively," notes Usman. At that time, Komnas Ham did summon a number of senior military officers seen as having been involved in those cases. "It did not just bark, it bit, too, then," he said.
Komnas Ham's spiritless work began to show when it conducted an investigation into the Trisakti, Semanggi I and Semanggi II cases in the era of President Megawati's administration. "This was due to the absence of support from the President and the DPR," explained Usman. While in fact, he added, the previous government amply supported the settlement of various cases of basic human rights violation.
Therefore, to Usman, external factors-support of the government and the House-remain more decisive in the performance of Komnas Ham than internal ones, such as the weak authority of this institution. "If its mandate is weak, as alleged, how come it could be effective at the time of the East Timor and Tanjung Priok cases?" he wondered.
Director of the Community Study and Advocacy Institute (Elsam), Agung Putri, too, saw the presence of a law as a legal basis as not automatically making Komnas Ham an institution "with teeth." As Agung has it, in a bureaucratic culture like the present one, an institution given a constitutional basis would inevitably become a bureaucratic one. "Here I see Komnas Ham swallowing that perception," he said, "instead of keeping a distance and remaining independent."
On the other hand, Agung Putri acknowledged that there is opposition from other state institutions in order to prevent Komnas Ham from using its authority. In this regard Agung pointed out that when Komnas Ham asked the court to forcibly summon a defendant in a human rights violation case the request was ignored. "How would Komnas Ham be able to use its authority, if the court is unwilling even to just summon a defendant?" asked Agung.
Chairman of Komnas Ham, Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, did not deny that the institution he is leading faces many obstacles in carrying out its task. In the Indonesian basic human rights protection system, Hakim said, Komnas Ham belongs to the investigator subsystem. The law says that reports on investigations conducted by Komnas Ham can only the submitted to the President and the DPR.
In such a condition, Abdul Hakim said, if the state apparatus ignores a recommendation, legally speaking the National Human Rights Commission cannot take any legal action whatsoever. "Except for opening the recommendation to the public so that there will be pressure on the related state apparatus," he added. As Abdul Hakim has it, one of the ways to overhaul Komnas Ham in order to have it acquire sharp fangs is to revise Law No. 39/1999. "This will enable Komnas Ham to take legal action against any state agency that disregards any of its recommendations," he explained. – Dimas Adityo