27 June 2019
Author: Andy F Noya Senior journalist
Jokowi's anger and legal certainty
Author: Andy F Noya Senior journalist
Thursday, June 27, 2019, 01:20
Media Indonesia – OPINION
A few days ago, various mass media reported on President Jokowi's outrage at the Cabinet Limited Meeting regarding the stagnation of investments entering Indonesia and export volumes that had not gone up. Even in the Limited Cabinet Meeting, President Jokowi underlined that this was the sixth meeting, without visible results.
President Jokowi's anger is certainly a concern for us all. Because the entry of investment and rising exports are important factors to improve Indonesia's economic growth amid pessimistic conditions due to various domestic factors, including prolonged political problems and external factors, especially the impact of the ongoing trade wars of the United States and China.
President Jokowi's anxiety immediately reminded us of the lack of legal certainty in this country. Even though we all know that legal certainty is one of the instruments that is needed by the business world.
Without legal certainty, investors will certainly hesitate. In conditions without certainty, investors will not dare to take unmeasured risks. This lack of legal certainty can also be seen in the case of reclamation and Building Construction Permit (IMB) on the reclamation island in DKI, which to this day is still a hot issue in various mass media.
The issue of weak legal certainty is also very evident in the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance Case (BLBI). The issue that has been going on for 21 years is long and tiring. As if there is no end. Since the BLBI policy was taken due to the economic crisis in 1998, up to this day, the case has not been completed.
Like a submarine, sometimes it sinks, sometimes it emerges. Moreover, m in accordance with many studies written or submitted by business people, legal practitioners, observers, even politicians many parties are utilizing this case by "frying" this issue. This case is also an issue that can be reviewed from various perspectives.
Especially from a legal and economic standpoint. As long as the case is rolling and does not end, making some people to claim to be tired of talking about the case that actually have to stop because there has been a legal ruling that is fixed.
Bringing up the BLBI case - apart from the interests of various parties who take advantage of this issue for their own benefit - is really highly energy-consuming for this nation. Policies taken in a crisis situation of that time, certainly cannot be measured by the normal conditions of this time. The situation and conditions are clearly very different. That there were those who benefited and some that were harmed, that's the situation at that time.
There is a price to pay. But the condition is situational because it relates to the situation faced by the government at that time and where quick decision had to be taken to overcome the crisis.
Goals and interests of each.
In fact, in the way, this case has gone through various processes and stages of completion. Both legally by the government at that time and under the next government. There are recipients of BLBI funds who have completed all their obligations, and some that are not yet processed. For those who have undergone their obligations, there are those who are punished with compensation and some that are serving prison terms. All according to the level of error from each.
In the case of BDNI, one of the recipients of BLBI funds, for example, should have been deemed to have been completed at the time of the signing the Master Settlement and Acquisition Agreement (MSAA). On May 25, 1999, the government issued a Release and Discharge as part of the agreement on Obligation of Shareholders' Settlement (PKPS).
In other words, the government guaranteed legal certainty that it would not prosecute and released shareholders and directors from their responsibilities. Likewise, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) in 2002 and 2006 issued an investigative audit report stating that PKPS had no problems, so that the Certificate of Settlement (SKL) that was given was also in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.
But in 2017 - eleven years later - the BPK issued a different audit results for the same case. It was the BPK's final decision that was different from the two previous BPK decisions which various groups also considered to have caused legal uncertainty. There are still many stories about legal uncertainty as the example above. But there are too many to reveal one by one in this paper.
If economic policy is decided by the government in an abnormal situation (economic crisis 1998), then it is questioned again using measures of normal conditions, how many cases of economic and legal policies in the past can be raised and reopened? If that happens, then the legal certainty in this country will be increasingly crossed and become a big question for potential investors and business people.
Likewise, the question will arise, how long is the time span and the size of a case that has been decided in the past and has permanent legal force, that can be opened and questioned again? Of course we do not deny there are different cases, human rights violations, for example, where there are issues that are still dark and must be resolved because they are related to crimes against humanity. But in the case of the BLBI policy at that time, the problem was already clear and had been resolved through various processes and even political steps.
Likewise, from the aspect of state losses, if compensation and take-over of assets of recipients of BLBI funds have been carried out in accordance with legal provisions, and the value of state losses agreed upon by the parties when the legal decision was taken, then the decision must be respected and become the guideline of all parties.
In the case of BDNI, for example, according to the mandate of the MPR through TAP MPR No. X / 2001, the government has already issued a Certificate of Settlement (SKL). This means that SKL is a product of law and the constitution that must be respected and obeyed. Therefore, the BLBI case controversy should be ended. There are no more parties who make this problem a "fried food" to get unilateral benefits.
As a nation that is predicted to be able to become the fourth largest economy in the world by 2030, we certainly do not want to use the "rear view mirror" perspective in seeing the BLBI case and various other cases in the past that have been decided, and which have permanent legal force.
Do not waste our energy as a nation to look back and be held hostage by the problems that have been completed so that it does not become a burden for us as we move forward. In front of this nation there are still many challenges that must be a priority and our mutual attention which also becomes homework that must be done immediately. We must rise to welcome a better future with new enthusiasm and optimism that includes legal certainty in this country, investment will flow in and our exports will move up.
Thus, our economy can also grow healthy, the people of Indonesia will be more prosperous, and Pak Jokowi as president no longer needs to feel upset at the Cabinet Limited Meeting in the days to come.