T

he Bantul regency administration in Yogyakarta continues implementation of Provincial Bylaw No. 7/2005 on Transparency and Public Participation in the governance of Bantul, which is substantially contrary to Law No. 14/2008 on the Law on Openness to Public Information (KIP).

“The bylaw should be revoked and replaced because it is against the KIP Law,” Indonesian Islamic University legal expert Zairin Harahap told The Jakarta Post on Monday.

According to Zairin, there are at least four substances which are contrary to the KIP law — rights and obligation to public information, reasons to object information, dispute settlement and criminal prosecution for public officials who fail to provide public information.

For example, the regulation on refusal to provide information regulated in Bylaw No. 7/2005, which is different from Article 17 of the KIP Law, clearly stipulates access to any information other than that considered classified. In the bylaw, the refusal to provide information can be done if it is not the moment to publicize the information.

“This clearly cannot be measured and its interpretation depends on the public official. In addition to that, the bylaw in Bantul does not provide a mechanism to resolve information disputes, whereas in fact the KIP Law mandated that information disputes could be settled through the National Information Commission or Provincial Information Commission.

Another contradiction can also be noticed from the sanction article for public officials who refuse to provide information to the public. Bylaw No. 7/2005 imposes administrative sanctions, while Article 52 of the KIP Law imposes criminal sanctions.

Zairin said the bylaw on transparency and public participation in Bantul was apparently drafted prior to the enactment of the KIP Law, so much so that it was usual that there were contradictory regulations. However, the bylaw is automatically annulled for the sake of law, with the issuance of the KIP Law.

“If it is to be implemented, the regulation is null and void, meaning that if it is contradictory, a higher regulation automatically replaces a lower one,” said Zairin.

According to Valentina Sri Wijiyati from the Institute for Development and Economic Analysis (IDEA) in Yogyakarta, the Bantul regency administration remains implementing Bylaw No. 7/2005 in response to Bantul residents’ public information needs.

Commission A member of the Bantul regency council Agus Effendi claimed not to know if the law was contrary to Bylaw No. 7/2005, as the council had so far been passive prior to evaluation by the president and the Home Ministry on the disputed ordinance. “Had we have known about it we would have informed the matter to the executive body,” said Agus.

If Bylaw No. 7/2005 would be replaced, Commission A would express the matter with the local legislative speaker and later evaluate and propose it in the regional legislation program.

When reached by phone, Bantul Regent Sri Surya Widati declined to comment on the matter.

Bantul regency spokesman Fatoni said that if Bylaw No. 7/2005 was against the KIP Law, the executive of the regency administration could not immediately revoke it. “The human relations and legal divisions will study the matter,” said Fatoni.

Yogyakarta Information Commission member Surat Jumadal said the controversial Bylaw No. 7/2005 should no longer be used and be replaced with a new bylaw, or a regency decree.

“The cost is expensive to enact a bylaw, because it must include a comparable study,” said senior bureaucrat Surat.