A number of Members of Central and Districts Information Commission considers that Article 29 of the Freedom of Information Law were contradictory with the independence of the Information Commission. Therefore, they perform a judicial review on the law to the Constitutional Court (MK). Monday (November 11th, 2014), The Court held the first hearing with preliminary examination agenda. In the trial, the Court gave some advice.
Assembly that led by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi is still assessing the arguments in the application document and has not been focus and narrowed to constitutional loss.
“It is distracted. You will face the legislator, even the experts. It’s not about winning or losing, but how do you ensure that this application is the real issue of constitutionality,” said Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi during the trial.
Judge Aswanto also requested that the petition should be elaborated with fact description that occurred until the conclusion of the applicant suffered actual constitutional loss. “Well, this needs to be elaborated in such a way, including being able to be elaborated by the fact that occurs when handling 772 disputes. Is there a constitutional loss specifically when handling 772 disputes? The handling of 772 disputes did not perform in a short time, but it’s been so long,” Aswanto suggest. (The full hearing can be seen in this link)
On the same occasion the applicant’s attorney, Veri assess that Information Commission as a semi-judicial institution which decides disputes between public institutions with the applicant should be self-reliant and independent institution as referred by Article 23 Freedom of Information Law. Within the meaning, in carrying out duties, the Commission should have released from of interest (government) and the litigants.
In accordance with Article 23 Freedom of Information Law states the Information Commission is an independent institution that serves running the law and the implementation rules establish a standard technical guidelines of public information service and resolve the public information disputes through mediation, and or non-litigation adjudication.
Unfortunately, secretarial arrangements involving the government as regulated in Article 29 Freedom of Information Law does not support the independence of implementation tasks of the Information Commission. This is contrary to the independence principle of Information Commission as quasi-judicial institution. “Although designed as an independent institution, there’s still setting that inconsistent. This inconsistency can be seen in Article 29 paragraph (2) and paragraph (4),” he said as quoted by hukumonline.com.
Therefore, the applicant asked for Article 29 paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5) of Freedom of Information Law has been opposed with the 1945 law and does not have binding legal force to the extent not be interpreted as follows: (2) Information Commission Secretariat conducted by the secretariat of the Central Information Commission; (3) the Secretariat of the Central Information Commission chaired by the Secretary General proposed by the Central Information Commission to the president; (4) Secretariat conducted by the Provincial Information Commission secretary proposed by the Provincial Information Commission to the Central Information Commission; and (5) Secretariat of the District/Sub-district Information Commission conducted by the secretary proposed by District/Sub-district Information Commission to the Provincial Information Commission.