Jakarta, IDN Times – Discussion held by students of the Faculty of Law, Gajah Mada University (UGM) who are members of the Constitutional Law Society (CLS) on Friday (29/5), had to be canceled. The reason was that the committee and the resource persons, the professor of law at the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII), Ni’matul Huda, received a terror attack.
The terrorist acts took place in a series that even threatened death. This can not be separated from the theme raised by the webinar namely, ‘The Issue of Dismissal of the President in the Middle of the Pandemic Judging from the Administrative System’. Headlines which in the New Order era would have been labeled “subversive”.
The problem is, we are not in the New Order era with an anticritical regime in which democracy because of limited freedom of opinion, even tends to be tightly closed. Since the reforms, every article on freedom of opinion, expression both for the press and the general public, began to be glorified.
The 1945 Constitution which regulates freedom of opinion for each individual. Article 28E Paragraph (3) states that everyone has the right to freedom of association, association and expression. There is also Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution, which states that every person has the right to communicate and obtain information to develop his personal and social environment, and has the right to seek, obtain, own, store, process, and convey information using all types of available channels.
There is also Article 23 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 39 Year 1999 concerning Human Rights (Human Rights Law) which reads: Every person is free to have, issue and disseminate opinions according to his conscience, orally and or in writing through printed or electronic media with pay attention to religious values, decency, order, public interest, and state integrity.
22 years have passed since the reformation began, how is the condition of Indonesia’s democracy today? Events such as acts of terror against the academic pulpit with the theme of criticism of the government have reminded us of the New Order’s air. Is it true that Jokowi’s government is anticritical and allergic to the themes of impeachment for fear of being overthrown by the people?
1. Institutional Equivalent Survey shows the score of freedom of expression in the Jokowi era continues to decline
Setara Institute Executive Director Ismail Hasani said that terror in the UGM academic stand was an alarm for Indonesian democracy. Although the government claimed not to have been involved in the terror, Ismail said, the country would be the beneficiary if a solution was never taken.
“The installation of this freedom is a form of literacy and science destruction that has an impact on the quality of democracy. If the government does not take solutive steps, the government can be considered to enjoy all the persecution and coercive actions of citizens in various events, “Ismail said as stated in the written statement received IDN Times, Tuesday (2/6).
Setara Institute noted the score of freedom of expression in the era of President Jokowi continued to decline. In the survey conducted in 2019, during the first period of Jokowi’s administration, the score of freedom of expression was only 1.9, on a scale of 1 to 7. The other red report cards were of the 11 human rights variables evaluated, with an average score of 3.2.
“The low score for freedom of expression and opinion is supported by data on serious violations, such as 204 individual criminalization events, blocking 32 online media, 961,456 blocking internet sites and social media accounts, seven discussion breaks, book banning, and the use of unaccountable treason offenses. to ensnare at least seven citizens, “said Ismail.
Setara Institute recommends that the government prioritizes the principle of deliberative democracy, so that all elements of the state are involved in solving the nation’s problems.
“Diverse perspectives and discussion of a case must be given safe space to be expressed. Unfounded fears related to treason against the ruling government should not justify this practice of silencing. Every voice has the opportunity to live in a society without repression, “said UIN lecturer Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Because the discussion was classified as freedom of expression guaranteed in human rights, the Setara Institute urged law enforcement to investigate who was behind the terror, so the discussion was canceled.
“The state cannot afford to neglect in the midst of situations that show violations of freedom of association, assembly and expression. “The state’s proactive attitude is needed to show that elements of the state or other state-sponsored organs are not behind the events of academic persecution at UGM,” Ismail said.
Also Read: Indicators: Satisfaction with Democracy Worst for 16 Years
2. A series of anticritical cases which have to deal with the rubber article of the ITE Law
In addition to cases of intimidation against discussions at UGM, there are many other repressive cases. In March, police raided the boarding room of a Muhammadiyah Surakarta University student, Mohammad Hisbun Payu, in the Laweyan area, Surakarta City.
On his Instagram account, Hisbun Payu called Jokowi a “curse president” because of his policy which, according to him, was more concerned with investment than people’s welfare. He was furious over Jokowi’s policies which he considered to place economic development as a top priority.
A month later, a case that caught the public’s attention was about the arrest of activist Ravio Patra. He is known for criticizing President Jokowi’s policies. Ravio’s WhatsApp account was hacked by someone. Suddenly, a message of invitation to conduct national pillaging was sent from the WhatsApp Ravio account. The evidence was then used as the police to arrest him.
Determination of the suspect has also occurred to human rights activists (human rights) as well as Papuan student lawyer Veronika Koman. This woman who was born in Medan, June 14, 1988, is a lawyer and human rights activist and is known as a brave person to uncover the issues of human rights violations on the Earth of Paradise.
Veronika was once named a suspect because of the alleged provocation and dissemination of false information about the incident of Papuan student dormitories in Surabaya, East Java. He is suspected of being actively involved in spreading information on provocative social media, especially through his personal Twitter account. He tweeted a number of calls for mobilization of action to the streets in Jayapura and a number of cities in Papua.
In all of these cases, the police used Article 27 paragraph 3 of the ITE Law on contempt and defamation, as well as Article 28 paragraph 2 of the ITE Law on the expression of hate. The two articles of rubber are easily misused under the pretext of insult, defamation, or inciting hatred or animosity which is interpreted unilaterally by law enforcement officials.
3. Observers assess the government parno against popular criticism because of failure in policy
Meanwhile, Political Observer from Al-Azhar University of Indonesia Ujang Komaruddin saw many problems faced by the government regarding a number of policies that were considered unreliable.
For example the revision of the KPK Law which sparked a riot towards the end of last year. After that, there is Law No. 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba) which was just ratified on 13 May, which reaped a lot of polemic. There is also Perppu Number 1 of 2020 concerning Financial Policies and Financial System Stability for Handling the COVID-19 Pandemic which is widely debated by the public.
He said the failure of governance also made today’s regime become afraid if it gets input or criticism from the public, including students.
“Now this accumulation of mistrust actually makes the government not confident. It was then that when there was a public discourse about democracy and related issues of impeachment it was finally intimidated. Because the government has many problems, many problems. If the government is good, there are no problems, it will be confident, left (criticized). The logic is simple, “Ujang said when contacted by IDN Times, Wednesday (3/5).
Instead of taking repressive actions by intimidation and terror, Ujang asked the government to improve its performance which was considered to overlap with his aides in the Advanced Indonesia cabinet.
“Simple, works well for the people. not working well for the benefit of the group. “If this country, this government works well for the people, nation and country, I think the community will support,” he said.
Therefore, Ujang regretted the intimidation and terror that occurred at the organizers and speakers at the discussion that was held by CLS UGM’s Faculty of Law. He said criticism from students was a bitter pill that the government must swallow as an effort to correct and supervise. The intimidation that was carried out actually marked the current regime as anti-democratic and very dangerous for the government itself.
“Academic pulpit must be maintained, it’s only a discourse (impeachment) and must still be guarded by anyone. Which should not be in the form of action in unconventional ways. So actually when they express their opinions on campus, the discussion through the online network in the academic forum is guaranteed by the constitution article 28 E. So if there is a threat of murder, intimidation, if in my opinion something is excessive and will endanger democracy, “he said.
Also Read: Crowded Talked, This is the Stage of the Presidential Imprisonment Process
4. Jokowi’s palace denies anticriticism, intimidation is carried out by sub-powers that capture the hearts of superiors
Continue reading the article below
Responding to a number of criticisms addressed to the government, the Chief Expert Staff of the Presidential Staff Office (KSP) Donny Gahral Adian spoke up. He emphasized that the administration of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo had never used his power repressively, to kill the freedom of expression and opinion of each individual.
He considered that intimidation was carried out by the sub-power to be able to win the hearts of the authorities, in this case President Jokowi.
“If I can be said to be sure, yes, sure that it is not the work of official authority. “It was caused by private sub-powers who tried to win the hearts of power holders, for the sake of reputation and political mobilization,” Donny said in an online discussion titled Terror in the Room of Democracy, Wednesday (3/6).
He explained, the power was divided into two groups, namely the power of dark and light. Bright power, he continued, is often shown by the New Order regime by bringing in officials who aim to disperse discussion forums. While illicit power is usually often carried out with unseen, but deadly intelligence operations such as kidnapping.
“I believe that the government does not use black and white methods too, meaning that it does not use dark and light power to stifle democracy. Because we know that there is no strong government after the reform, “he said.
Donny continued, political support from the coalition to the Jokowi government was also not as strong as in the first period. The second period factor and the president does not have a party strongly shows the current deficit in political relations.
“This is only 2020 but we see how the supporting parties in various policies also become opposition. Even Pak Jokowi’s supporters who are militant in 2019 can now differ in their views due to COVID-19, starting from the policy and workforce, Perppu Number 1. So Jokowi’s government is not as strong, aggressive, as responsive, as fierce as thought, “he said.
Not only that, many institutions work to oversee the government. Therefore the government cannot be arbitrary or make use of its power (abuse of power) to intimidate certain groups.
“Because we know that there is no strong government after reform. First there are many supervisors, both formal monitors in parliament, political parties and their factions, as well as those in civil society now the number is germinating, “he said.
Donny also requested that this matter be immediately investigated by the authorities, to ascertain whether it had really happened abuse of power by the current government. “so it is clear who is terrorizing, what is the motivation, and then it can be further processed.”
“So then if it is concluded that the Jokowi Government is shackling, limiting power to only those indicators of terror, I think it is too far,” he said again.
5. Uproar about impeachment
The terror incident against UGM students has raised the theme of impeachment. The Chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) Advisory Council Din Syamsuddin also responded to the impeachment of a leader in the political version of Islam. According to Din, his nickname, there are three conditions that require a leader to be ousted from office, citing Islamic political thinker Al Mawardi.
This was conveyed by Din when holding an online seminar with the theme “Questioning the Freedom of Opinion and Constitutionality of the Presidential Forfeiture of the COVID-19 Pandemic Era”, organized by the Muhammadiyah Constitutional Law Society (Mahutama).
“First there is an absence of justice. If it is already unfair among its citizens, there is a socioeconomic gap. This is very basic, because it is the leader’s main requirement, it can be impeached, “Din said in the seminar on Monday (1/6).
Second, continued Din, impeachment can occur in a leader who has no knowledge. This can be seen from his vision of the ideals of national and state life.
“If there is a silencing of the campus, silencing of academic activities, suppressing the academic pulpit, it is essentially contrary to the intellectual life of the nation. On the contrary, it is the folly of national life, “he said.
Third, the lecturer of Islamic Politics at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, UIN Syarif Hidayatulah continued, impeachment can occur if a leader is unable to provide a solution in a critical situation. The leader also lost his authority, because he was depressed by conditions that were difficult to deal with.
“As in international relations, when we lose our sovereignty by being subject to that foreigner,” he said.
Furthermore, Din sees that the current state life is more inclined to a dictatorial system which is anti-critical and often suppresses people’s democratic freedom. Quoting Lebanese Islamic political thinker, Rasyid Ridha, in the 20th century, authoritarian leaders must be opposed because they can be dangerous for life together, for example violating the constitution.
“I see the life of our country lately building a constitutional dictatorship that resides behind the constitution. Such as Perppu’s products become laws and a number of other policies, “said Din.
Also Read: Jokowi’s impeachment due to Handling of COVID-19? This is the Legal Expert’s Word
6. Constitutional law experts explain the complexity of impeachment in the presidential system
Constitutional Law Expert Denny Indrayana provides an explanation of the impeachment flow of a president based on the 1945 Constitution.
He explained, the plot of impeachment started from a forum in the DPR which was then taken to the Constitutional Court (MK), then approved after obtaining approval by the MPR. According to Denny, it is very difficult to impeach a president in Indonesia who adopts a presidential system.
He said there were differences in the mechanism for dismissing the president after the third amendment of the 1945 Constitution which was considered political in nature, for example violating the State Policy Outline (GBHN). While in the current 1945 Constitution, the sacking of the president can occur if he is involved in violating the law and acts of corruption that have been proven to have been committed by a president.
The impeachment process starts from the DPR through the inquiry right process and continues to the Constitutional Court (MK). In this process alone, he said, it has been very difficult to continue given the enormous strength of the government party coalition in the legislature.
In Article 7B Paragraph 3, it is explained that the forum requirements for the DPR’s request to the Constitutional Court must be with the support and presence of members of at least 2/3 of the total number of DPR members present in the Parliament.
“If we calculate now the strength of President Jokowi’s coalition, then with the opposition of the PKS and the Democrats, we can expect the calculations to be rejected by the DPR. Then only in the first stage will the president be safe, “Denny said in an online discussion with the theme Questioning Freedom of Opinion and Constitutionality of the Presidential Forfeiture of the Pandemic Era COVID-19, Monday (1/6).
If the DPR agrees to hold discussions at the Constitutional Court, it is not certain that the impeachment is immediately passed. Denny said there was a possibility that at this stage, the DPR’s opinion would be heard or even rejected.
“Then there was another hearing even though the Constitutional Court said the president committed the crime accordingly impeachment, not necessarily the president is dismissed. It could be that the Constitutional Court was annulled by a political dismissal at the MPR, “he said.
The former deputy minister of law and human rights said the impeachment process of a president in the MPR often became a debate because there were many political elements. Discussions at the MPR level are more difficult because they require at least 3/4 members to attend and are approved by 2/3 of the total MPR members.
“The conditions are more difficult than in the DPR. “In the first stage, in the House of Representatives with a large coalition, Jokowi is safe to continue the government unless there is a difference in the political map,” said Denny.
“The decision at the Constitutional Court should be final, not be changed politically anymore because it has been through a long debate (in the DPR),” he continued.
Also Read: The Tragedy of Law and Democracy in the Jokowi Era