•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

Antigraft activists have warned that a petition by legislators calling for an inquiry into a moratorium on sentence cuts for graft convicts could cement the House of Representatives’ reputation for being pro-corruption.

Abdullah Dahlan, a researcher with Indonesia Corruption Watch, said on Sunday that the petition, which already has the backing of 100 legislators from several parties, was an unreasonable knee-jerk reaction to the justice minister’s recent denial of early release for former Golkar Party legislator and bribery convict Paskah Suzetta.

“It’s very strange that they’re doing this,” Abdullah said. “This will only reinforce public perception that the House is pro-corruption.”

He pointed out that the House was already widely perceived as being among the most corrupt institutions in the country according to a Transparency International study, and approving the inquiry would only make its reputation worse.

He condemned the move to formally question Justice Minister Amir Syamsuddin’s decision as self-serving.

“We have to ask, does the moratorium pose a threat to the people?” he said.

“Of course not. There’s no negative impact to the public at all from this move. The only people who stand to suffer are the corruptors. So this opposition to the moratorium clearly shows that the House has a tendency to misuse its constitutional rights to push for protection for corruptors.”

At a hearing with Amir on Wednesday, Golkar, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and the United Development Party (PPP) expressed their objection to the moratorium on remissions.

The ruling Democratic Party, the National Mandate Party (PAN), the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) and the People’s Conscience Party (Hanura), meanwhile, said that they did not outright reject the policy but wanted its legality examined.

The objections stem from Amir’s admission that there was an order to re-incarcerate Paskah immediately upon his remission-based release on Oct. 30, the letter formalizing the moratorium on remissions was only issued on Nov. 16.

However, ICW said the House had no case for questioning the legality of the decision.

Donal Fariz, an ICW researcher, said the move to jail Paskah could be justified by a 2006 government regulation on early release of prisoners.

“Based on that 2006 regulation, the granting of remissions, assimilation programs, early release or parole must be made with respect to the public’s sense of justice,” he said.

He added that this meant those privileges could be rescinded by the government if it was felt that the early release of a particular person would offend the wider sense of justice.

“There is always the obligation for the Justice and Human Rights Ministry to consider the public’s sense of justice,” Donal said.

Very few members of the general public, he argued, would want to see a corruption convict, particularly a high-profile one like a legislator, receive a reduction in sentence.

However, Donal also suggested that if the moratorium was part of a wider effort to revoke the “luxuries” afforded to graft convicts under the justice system, including relatively lights sentences, then the Justice Ministry would need to formalize it through amendments to the 1995 Corrections Law.