In September 2008, the Institute for Information Flow Studies (ISAI), a Jakarta-based freedom of information advocacy group, requested the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) be more transparent by providing its details on the salaries of its commissioners.
The NGO also asked the anticorruption body for information on its budget and on what it does with the corruption money it has recovered. The ISAI also wanted to know the specifications of the surveillance equipment the KPK has used successfully in its much publicized sting operations.
The KPK provided information on the first two items but not the third. For the specs of its bugging devices, the KPK said the details were confidential.
The ISAI’s purpose in the information-seeking exercise of public bodies, was to test the Access to Public Information Act (Keterbukaan Informasi Publik or KIP in Indonesian) that was enacted on April 13, 2008.
Two years after its passing, time needed to develop the necessary infrastructure, this 64-article freedom of information (FOI) law becomes effective April 30, 2010.
The FOI Act works on the MALE principle: maximum access, limited exemption. The major aim of this law, stated in Article 3, is to assure citizens of their right to know about public policy making, demanding transparency of public bodies.
Under this law, all public bodies are obliged to disclose the public information they keep. Public bodies are public offices as well as NGOs that receive funding from the state budget and donations from community and foreign sources.
However, Article 17 of the law lists at least 10 types of exempted information. This includes disclosing information that may obstruct law enforcement, negates protection of intellectual property rights, endangers state security and defense, revealing Indonesia’s natural wealth, that may harm national economic resilience, be detrimental to foreign relations, reveal authentic deeds such as inheritance papers of a personal nature, exposes a secret of a private nature, that is confidential memoranda between and within public bodies, and also information deemed not for disclosure by law.
Despite these exemptions, much latitude is still open for a call to disclosure for information to prevent impropriety in public offices. The current tax broker scandal involving prosecutors and police officers is one example.
Investigators, the press and members of the public who seek such information may not be initially successful in procuring the information. The office that keeps the information may resist.
The ISAI has faced such resistance from the Health Ministry, the Indonesian Military (TNI) and BPMigas, the oil and gas regulatory agency.
The Health Ministry refused to provide data on its health insurance for lower-income people for 2007.
The TNI rejected the ISAI’s request for the findings of the inquiry of the Officers’ Honors Council (Dewan Kehormatan Perwira) on the disappearance of human rights activists in 1997-1998. And BP Migas denied access to the work contract details on the oil-rich Cepu mining block in Central Java.
In such a situation, the Information Commission plays the role of arbiter. Established under Articles 23 to 34 of the FOI Act, the seven-member Central Information Commission is tasked to deliberate and rule on public information disputes.
Five-member provincial, city and district level commissions have also been created for the same purpose. The independent Commission also has the function to form a general policy and implement directives in serving public information.
If the Information Commission rules in favor of the information seeker but the public body that holds the information refuses to release it, the latter will have to face the full weight of the law.
Under Article 52, a public body can face a one-year jail sentence and a Rp 5 million (US$550) fine for refusing to release lawfully requested information.
In the two-year period before the public information act became effective, preparatory measures taken included developing the Information Commission at the national and local level, the drafting of implementing regulations, designing an information service system, and opening a public information unit in public bodies manned by officers tasked with storing, documenting, and serving the information.
One regulation that should be considered relates to charges for information requests.
This is to preclude any illegal levies for such requests, says Notrida G.B. Mandica-Nur, director of the Indonesian Research and Development Institute (IRDI). Notrida has authored a 177-page Access to Public Information Manual for the use of information and documentation officers. The IRDI has been conducting training of trainers’ workshops on the new law.
According to Central Information Commission chairman Ahmad Alamsyah Saragih, only seven public bodies have developed internal mechanisms to implement the FOI law.
They are the National Police, the Health Ministry, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the government of Central Java province, the State Comptroller’s Agency (BPKP), and the Financial Transaction Reports Analysis Center (PPATK). The Communications and Information Ministry, however, has also set up a Public Information Agency.
The National Police has undertaken detailed preparatory work. In November 2009, public affairs chiefs at all 31 provincial police headquarters gathered in Jakarta for a workshop with the theme, “Opening Space for Public Transparency”.
One major output of the workshop was a draft on police procedures in servicing public information.
How well the procedures work and how much transparency the National Police is willing to offer is being tested with the pile of scandal-prone cases now in its in-tray. All public bodies are now on notice.
The writer teaches journalism and has conducted workshops on development reporting at the Dr. Soetomo Press Institute (LPDS) in Jakarta.
.JPG)
.JPG)
