The judicial review hearing of Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press to hear the Relevant Party’s testimony, Tuesday (1/11/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Tuesday, January 11, 2022 | 15:12 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The functions of the Press Council as referred to in in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f is the manifestation of Article 28, Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28 paragraph (1), and Article 28I of the 1945 Constitution, said the Chairman of the Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI) Atal S. Depari at a hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press virtually on Tuesday, January 11, 2022.
Depari said that the PWI did not suffer any constitutional impairment or operational losses due to the article petitioned by Heintje Grontson Mandagie, Hans M. Kawengian, and Soegiharto Santoso. In fact, the council brings many benefits to the press community and organizations, including the PWI. Thus, the PWI stands by its opinion that Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Press Law does not need any other interpretation.
At the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, Depari said that the Press Law provides legal certainty for the national press ecosystem and is constitutional. He also argued that the a quo article provides a strong basis for the president to consistently maintain legal certainty by only appointing members of the Press Council that are in accordance with the values of the press community, the national press ecosystem, and the Press Law.
“Therefore, the PWI the a quo article does not need to be given another meaning, which has been regulated and explained by the Press Law,” he said virtually.
Also read: Press Council’s Function in Drafting Regulations Called into Question
He also stressed that the a quo law is not only a result of the Reform era, but also resulted in independent press, which manifested into democracy in Indonesia. He called it one of the most valuable and pure legacies of the Reform. “Most valuable because [thanks to] the Press Law, until today public participation in preserving democracy is still ongoing,” he said in response to the case No. 38/PUU-XIX/2021.
Depari believes that the Press Law is not only important to the press, but to everyone in relation to the nation and state life, especially democracy. Therefore, the PWI not only approves of the functions of the Press Council but also supports their implementation, including in facilitating press organizations to make regulations in the press.
Also read: Journalists Revise Petition on Press Law
Facilitator for Press Organizations
At the hearing, the nongovernmental press legal aid LBH Press, which represents the Alliance of the Independent Journalists (AJI) and the Indonesian Television Journalist Association (IJTI), asserted that the a quo article was not unconstitutional, but if it were changed following the Petitioners’ petitum, it would potentially result in legal uncertainty and ambiguity.
Legal counsel Ade Wahyudin said, when the a quo article is viewed as a whole, it stipulates that the Press Council functions to facilitate press organizations in drafting regulations in the press and improve the quality of journalists.
“The a quo article actually only gives authority to the Press Council to facilitate press organizations in drafting regulations in the press, so there is no opportunity for it to exercise monopoly,” he said.
Also read: Govt: Press Council Facilitates Lawmaking in Press
As a facilitator, he added, the council mandates press organizations’ participation in drafting regulations in the press, so if any regulations are found to have been made without any participation, several methods of complaint can be adopted, for example by raising objection to the Press Council, to file a state administrative lawsuit, or to file a judicial review petition to the Supreme Court.
Ade also said that it is a mistake to challenge the a quo article by making the Press Council lost its function as a facilitator to the press organizations in making regulations in the press and it could result in legal uncertainty.
Also read: Press Freedom Chaos Will Ensue If All Organizations Make Regulations
The Petitioners challenge the functions of the Press Council in drafting various press regulations as referred to in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f and Article 15 paragraph (5) of Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press. They argue that the ambiguity of Article 15 paragraph (5) of the Press Law has harmed their constitutional rights. As owners of press companies and legal entities, they feel that their right to form an independent Press Council and to vote for and be elected as Press Council members democratically had been oppressed. In addition, they believe the provision has prevented them from appointing and inaugurating Press Council members.
The Petitioners organized a national press congress in 2019, in which its members were appointed. However, due to Article 15 paragraph (5) of the Press Law, the results of the congress were not responded by the president. Moreover, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Press Law must be reviewed because it had led to press organizations losing their right to formulate regulations in press. The Press Council interprets the a quo article that they have the authority to draft and stipulate regulations in press. Therefore, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Press Law contradicts Article 28, Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (3), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution insofar as not interpreted as “in forming regulations in the press by each press organization” as it limits the press organizations’ right to develop freedom of the press and uphold the basic values of democracy, promote the rule of law and human rights, respect diversity, exercise supervision, critique, provide corrections and recommendations on public matters, as well as fight for truth and justice.
Therefore, in their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Press Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as “in forming regulations in press by each press organization.” They also requested that the Court declare Article 15 paragraph (5) of the Press Law unconstitutional insofar as not interpreted as “Presidential decrees are administrative in nature according to proposals or requests from press organizations, press companies, and journalists who are elected through a democratic press congress.”
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 01/12/2022 08:46 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Tuesday, January 11, 2022 | 15:12 WIB 216