Anticorruption activists have warned that the bill, which would technically remove hurdles for corruption convicts to receive remissions and conditional releases, could be such a “gift” for individuals convicted of graft, including those who are currently serving sentences.

House Commission III overseeing legal affairs and the government concluded on Tuesday evening the deliberation of a revision to a 1995 law on correctional procedures, hours after passing revisions to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law that neuter the antigraft body’s independence and effectiveness.

They agreed that the correctional procedures bill would be passed during the House's next plenary session this month, either on Sept. 23 or 24, arguing that the revision was necessary to uphold a sense of justice for all, including graft inmates.

The revision would scrap a 2012 government regulation on the rights of prisoners, which, among other things, stipulates strict measures when considering remissions and parole for those convicted of extraordinary crimes, including terrorism and corruption.

Erma Suryani Ranik, the chairwoman of the bill's working committee, said that after it was passed into law and took effect, the applicable procedures for remission and parole would revert back to a 1999 government regulation — the older version of the 2012 regulation.

Under the 2012 regulation, graft convicts may be considered for remission only if they are willing to serve as “justice collaborators” in graft investigations and are eligible for parole upon a recommendation from law enforcers, including the KPK.

The 1999 government regulation, however, does not set strict requirements for convicts of extraordinary crime seeking sentence cuts as it states that all inmates convicted of any crime are eligible to be considered for remission and parole.

Unless the courts that handed down punishments for graft convicts rule to revoke their rights to remission and parole, the inmates are to be allowed to submit requests for sentence cuts through the Law and Human Rights Ministry’s correctional affairs directorate general, Erma said.

Therefore, the enforcement of the 1999 regulation would do away with the requirement to receive recommendations from law enforcers, including the KPK, when inmates are considered for remission or parole.

“The ministry’s correctional affairs directorate general will consider whether or not the person is eligible,” the NasDem Party politician said.

Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly said that everyone had the rights to be able to get remission and parole, adding that he would adjust the government regulation later after the bill was passed into law.

“Unless limited by law and court verdicts, rights limitation is a violation,” Yasonna said on Wednesday.

A number of corruption convicts, including senior lawyer OC Kaligis, former Regional Representatives Council speaker Irman Gusman and former religious affairs minister Suryadharma Ali, have previously challenged articles on remissions in the 1995 law through the Constitutional Court in 2017.

The convicts argued they were “victims of discriminatory treatment that violates human rights principles” as every inmate had a right to parole. The court, however, rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments and the petitions.

Lawmaker Arsul Sani of the United Development Party (PPP) acknowledged that the revised 1995 law would benefit those imprisoned for graft. However, he asserted that the overall purpose of the revision was to reorganize the country's "integrated justice system" so that each institution would only do its own tasks and functions.

"An institution that has the main function to investigate should not interfere in prosecution and the others and vice versa,” Arsul said, adding that the House demanded the government immediately set parameters for determining an inmate's eligibility to receive a sentence reduction.

Anticorruption activists, however, argued that, if passed, the bill might lead to a more ineffective corruption eradication system, especially now that the revised KPK Law has neutered the antigraft body’s power to investigate, while the revised 1995 law would possibly lessen prison terms that were supposed to deter crimes.

Fajri Nursyamsi from the Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies said that as the bill was about “procedure”. As soon as it is enacted and takes effect, all convicts serving their prison sentences — including graft convicts — could immediately apply to get their sentences cut.

“When this law comes into force, the new procedure would apply,” Fajri told The Jakarta Post.

Yasonna rebuffed accusations that the revision was aimed at weakening the KPK’s authority, saying that the it contained new provisions that the government and House believed would be better for all inmates, including children.

“It's a prejudice. The overall bill is about accommodating a more advanced legal system,” he said.

Popular

China retaliates against EU ban with import restrictions on medical devices

KPK finds guns, Rp 2.8 billion in the house of an aide close to Bobby Nasution

Analysis: Indonesia’s competitiveness ranking falls amid weakening fundamentals