NASKAH AKADEMIK RANCANGAN PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN

Naskah Akademik adalah "naskah hasil penelitian atau pengkajian hukum dan hasil penelitian lainnya terhadap suatu masalah tertentu yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan secara ilmiah mengenai pengaturan masalah tersebut dalam suatu Rancangan Undang-Undang, Rancangan Peraturan Daerah Provinsi, Rancangan Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten/Kota, sebagai solusi terhadap permasalahan dan kebutuhan hukum masyarakat". (Berdasarkan Pasal 1 angka 11 Undang-Undang No 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan)

Sistematika Naskah Akademik adalah sebagai berikut:

(Berdasarkan Lampiran I  Undang-Undang No 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan)

JUDUL

KATA PENGANTAR

DAFTAR ISI

BAB I            PENDAHULUAN

BAB II          KAJIAN TEORETIS DAN PRAKTIK EMPIRIS

BAB III         EVALUASI DAN ANALISIS PERATURAN PERUNDANGUNDANGAN TERKAIT

BAB IV         LANDASAN FILOSOFIS, SOSIOLOGIS, DAN YURIDIS

BAB V          JANGKAUAN, ARAH PENGATURAN, DAN RUANG LINGKUP  MATERI MUATAN UNDANG-UNDANG, PERATURAN DAERAH PROVINSI, ATAU PERATURAN DAERAH KABUPATEN/KOTA

BAB VI         PENUTUP

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

LAMPIRAN: RANCANGAN PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN

JENIS DAN HIERARKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN

Salah satu perubahan materi muatan dalam Undang-Undang No 10 Tahun 2004 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan dalam Undang-Undang yang menggantikannya yaitu Undang-Undang No 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan adalah berubahannya ketentuan mengenai jenis dan hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan. Selengkapnya ketentuan ini diatur dalam pasal 7, 8 dan 9.

Pasal 7

(1) Jenis dan hierarki Peraturan Perundang-undangan terdiri atas:

a. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia
b. Tahun 1945;

c. Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat;
d. Undang-Undang/Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang;
e. Peraturan Pemerintah;
f. Peraturan Presiden;
g. Peraturan Daerah Provinsi; dan
h. Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten/Kota.

(2) Kekuatan hukum Peraturan Perundang-undangan sesuai dengan hierarki sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1).

Pasal 8

(1) Jenis Peraturan Perundang-undangan selain sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 7 ayat (1) mencakup peraturan yang ditetapkan oleh Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan, Komisi Yudisial, Bank Indonesia, Menteri, badan, lembaga, atau komisi yang setingkat yang dibentuk dengan Undang-Undang atau Pemerintah atas perintah Undang-Undang, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi, Gubernur, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Kabupaten/Kota, Bupati/Walikota, Kepala Desa atau yang setingkat.

(2) Peraturan Perundang-undangan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) diakui keberadaannya dan mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat sepanjang diperintahkan oleh Peraturan Perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi atau dibentuk berdasarkan kewenangan.

Pasal 9

(1) Dalam hal suatu Undang-Undang diduga bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, pengujiannya dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.

(2) Dalam hal suatu Peraturan Perundang-undangan di bawah Undang-Undang diduga bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang, pengujiannya dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Agung.

Menanti Realisasi Prolegnas Prioritas 2010

Ditulis oleh Khopiatuziadah *
Selasa, 16 Februari 2010 09:36
sumber: http://www.djpp.depkumham.go.id/htn-dan-puu/336-menanti-realisasi-prolegnas-prioritas-2010.html

Terdapat program 100 hari bagi penilaian awal kinerja pemerintah, maka dalam penilaian awal kinerja legislasi DPR (2010-2014) dikenal program legislasi nasional (Prolegnas) yang dapat diukur dari pencapaian Prolegnas prioritas tahun pertama. Terdapat total 58 RUU dalam Daftar Prolegnas yang dicanangkan untuk diselesaikan pada periode 2010. Belum lama ini Badan Legislasi dan Menkumham menyepakati 10 RUU tambahan dalam prioritas 2010. Realistiskah jumlah ini? Terdapat beberapa catatan terkait kesiapan dan realisasi untuk menyelesaikan sejumlah RUU dalam Prolegnas 2010.

Dari segi teknis terdapat beberapa catatan. Pertama, jumlah RUU yang harus diselesaikan. Perlu diketahui bahwa di luar 58 RUU prioritas 2010 , Prolegnas memungkinkan adanya pembahasan dan penyelesaian RUU yang masuk dalam daftar kumulatif terbuka yang jumlahnya tidak dibatasi namun dikelompokkan kepada RUU pengesahan perjanjian internasional, RUU yang harus diubah sebagai akibat keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, RUU RAPBN, RUU Pemekaran wilayah serta RUU Penetapan Perpu.
Di lain pihak, terbuka pula kemungkinan untuk mengajukan RUU di luar daftar Prolegnas dan daftar kumulatif terbuka. Pasal 17 ayat (3) UU No.10/2004 menyebutkan, “Dalam keadaan tertentu, DPR atau Presiden dapat mengajukan RUU di luar Prolegnas”. Pasal 108 Peraturan Tata Tertib DPR RI (TATIB), menjelaskan “keadaan tertentu” sebagai “keadaan yang memastikan adanya urgensi nasional atas suatu RUU”, dimana Baleg dengan menteri yang tugas dan tanggung jawabnya di bidang peraturan perundang-undangan dapat menyepakati hal tersebut. Ini berarti beban legislasi tidak semata-mata yang termuat dalam daftar Prolegnas.

Dari sisi yuridis, munculnya berbagai RUU diluar daftar Prolegnas memang dimungkinkan, namun ketentuan
ini justru melemahkan posisi dan tujuan penyusunan Prolegnas sebagai “kontrak” antara DPR dan Pemerintah untuk menyelesaikan kerja-kerja legislasi yang dicanangkan bersama selama periode tertentu. Prolegnas sebagai instrumen perencanaan program pembentukan undang-undang yang disusun secara terencana, terpadu dan sistemamatis tidak lagi terlihat signifikansinya manakala terdapat ketentuan yang memberi peluang untuk menafikan instrumen dimaksud. Sementara Prolegnas digambarkan sebagai wajah politik perundang-undangan Indonesia untuk periode lima tahun.

Mengantisipasi hal tersebut, penyusunan Prolegnas seharusnya memperhatikan kemungkinan, munculnya berbagai RUU di luar Prolegnas. Ini bisa kita evaluasi dari Prolegnas 2005-2009. Dari total 284 RUU dalam daftar 2005-2009 (long list RUU), pada prioritas tahun pertama ( 2005), sudah muncul 17 RUU non Prolegnas. Pada 2006, dari 44 RUU yang diprioritaskan, 4 diantaranya RUU non Prolegnas. kemudian mulai periode 2007 sampai 2009 hanya 30 sampai 50 persen yang merupakan RUU Prolegnas, sisanya adalah RUU kumulatif terbuka, dan RUU luncuran yang tidak dapat diselesaikan dalam periode sebelumnya.

Dari evaluasi Prolegnas 2005-2009, terlihat bahwa penetapan jumlah RUU prioritas terlihat kurang realistis sehingga pencapaianpun tidak maksimal. Catatan ini baru dari sisi kuantitas, secara kualitas, mayoritas RUU yang dihasilkan adalah RUU pemekaran wilayah dan ratifikasi perjanjian internasional. Berbagai RUU yang dinilai sangat dibutuhkan masyarakat dan merupakan kebutuhan pembangunan nasional justru tidak banyak terselesaikan. Tidak adanya konsistensi terhadap kesepakatan bersama untuk menyelesaikan sejumlah RUU pada setiap periodenya, diperburuk dengan catatan kualitas RUU yang dihasilkan.

Kedua, waktu pembahasan. Bisa dipastikan bahwa pembahasan suatu RUU adalah dalam masa sidang dimana DPR melakukan kegiatan utama didalam gedung DPR. Untuk tahun sidang 2009-2010 ini, DPR telah memasuki akhir masa sidang ke-2. Mampukah seluruh RUU prioritas diselesaikan dalam sisa masa sidang? harus diwaspadai bahwa penugasan pembahasan RUU kepada komisi, gabungan komisi (pansus) atau Baleg dibatasi paling banyak hanya dua RUU dalam waktu bersamaan kecuali menyangkut pembahasan RUU kumulatif terbuka. Penugasan baru untuk membahas RUU baru dapat diberikan oleh Badan Musyawarah (Bamus) setelah satu RUU selesai dibahas pada pembicaraan tingkat I (Pasal 134 TATIB). Sementara pembicaraan tingkat I untuk satu RUU dilakukan dalam jangka waktu paling lama 2 (dua) kali masa sidang dan dapat diperpanjang untuk jangka waktu paling lama 1 (satu) kali masa sidang. Perpanjangan waktu inipun harus didasari pertimbangan kompleksitas dari suatu RUU yang dibahas, banyaknya jumlah pasal serta beban tugas dari AKD yang bersangkutan (Pasal 141 TATIB).

Ketiga, pembahas. Dari 58 RUU prioritas tahun 2010, ternyata tidak terbagi secara proporsional, namun setidaknya satu komisi mendapat 2 RUU. Meskipun setiap komisi atau AKD tersebut dapat membagi diri menjadi dua panitia kerja (panja) RUU misalnya, namun tidak tertutup kemungkinan anggota panja tersebut juga terlibat atau masuk dalam panitia khusus (pansus) RUU yang merupakan gabungan dari berbagai komisi, atau masuk dalam panja RUU yang dibahas di Baleg. Perlu diperhatikan pula bahwa setiap anggota hanya dapat memperoleh penugasan pembahasan RUU tidak lebih dari 3 RUU kecuali untuk RUU kumulatif terbuka (Pasal 135 TATIB).

Keempat, kesiapan Naskah Akademik dan draft RUU sebagai persyaratan teknis masuknya suatu RUU kedalam daftar Prolegnas prioritas tahunan (Pasal 106 ayat (9) TATIB). Terpenuhinya persyaratan teknis ini tentu saja menjadi faktor penting terkait realisasi pembahasan suatu RUU. Kedua syarat teknis ini merupakan “bahan baku setengah jadi” dari suatu Undang-Undang. Dari total 58 RUU prioritas Prolegnas, 32 RUU disiapkan Naskah Akademik dan draft RUU-nya oleh pihak DPR sementara 26 sisanya disiapkan oleh Pemerintah. Beberapa RUU dalam daftar tanggung jawab DPR mungkin sudah dilengkapi Draft RUU dan Naskah Akademik terutama RUU yang masuk dalam daftar RUU yang tidak selesai dibahas pada periode 2004-2009, maupun RUU yang menjadi prioritas 2004-2009 namun belum sempat dibahas sama sekali.

Namun mengingat pembentukan RUU di DPR tidak mengenal istilah “carry over”, semua RUU dalam daftar Prolegnas dimulai proses pembentukannya dari awal, sehingga draft RUU dan Naskah Akademik yang sudah ada mungkin hanya dapat dijadikan sebagai bahan awal. Anggota DPR periode 2010-2014 tentunya tidak ingin mewarisi “kemauan politik” dan “PR” pendahulu mereka. Faktanya, dari 32 RUU yang harus disiapkan DPR, hanya 14 RUU yang merupakan RUU “lama”, sisanya RUU baru, yang bisa dipastikan belum dilengkapi dengan draft RUU dan Naskah Akademik. Dari sisi pemerintah tampaknya sedikit berbeda, lima puluh persen lebih dari RUU yang menjadi tanggung jawab pemerintah merupakan RUU “lama” (15 RUU), sehingga paling tidak setengah dari beban sudah mampu teratasi. Terlebih Pemerintah masih melanjutkan kebijakan kepemimpinan yang lama. Bahkan berdasarkan data dari BPHN, hampir 85 % RUU barupun telah memiliki kelengkapan Naskah Akademik dan draft RUU.

Kelima, tahapan pembentukan dan pembahasan RUU. Ketentuan mengenai mekanisme pembentukan dan pembahasan RUU telah mengalami beberapa perubahan dari periode sebelumnya, sebagaimana diatur dalam TATIB terbaru. Perubahan ini dimaksudkan untuk meningkatkan produktivitas kinerja legislasi DPR, antara lain dengan memangkas waktu dan tahapan yang harus dilakukan. Batasan waktu diberlakukan agar DPR lebih disiplin dalam menyelesaikan pembahasan suatu RUU dan tentu saja pada akhirnya diharapkan dapat memenuhi target yang dicanangkan. Meski demikian perubahan ini belum teruji karena baru akan dijalankan pada periode 2010-2014 ini.

Proses pembentukan RUU antara lain meliputi tahap penyiapan (antara lain public hearing,) penyusunan, perancangan sampai dengan pembahasan. Terdapat pula beberapa tahap teknis administratif yang harus dilewati, misalnya sebelum diajukan sebagai usulan DPR RI, suatu RUU harus melewati tahap harmonisasi di Baleg yang memakan waktu paling lama 10 hari untuk kemudian diajukan dalam rapat paripurna untuk mendapat persetujuan (Pasal 115-119 TATIB). Setelah itu, RUU tersebut harus melewati tahap penyempurnaan bila terdapat catatan perubahan setelah disetujui sebagai usul DPR. Tahap penyempurnaan ini dilakukan paling lama 30 hari masa sidang dan dimungkinkan perpanjangan hingga 20 hari masa sidang. Tahapan selanjutnya adalah pengiriman RUU tersebut kepada Presiden dengan permintaan agar Presiden menunjuk menteri yang akan mewakili untuk pembahasan bersama. Setelah mendapat Surat dari Presiden dengan menunjuk wakilnya, Bamus baru dapat menjadwalkan pembahasan RUU tersebut. Pembahasan sendiri terdiri dari 2 tingkat pembicaraan. Dapat dibayangkan mekanisme dan waktu pembahasan yang harus ditempuh untuk menyelesaikan 58 RUU di tahun 2010 ini.

Catatan lain yang sesungguhnya sangat penting bagi realisasi kinerja legislasi adalah mekanisme atau standar operasional yang efektif dan efisien dalam proses pembahasan undang-undang dan system pendukung yang kuat dan professional. Salah satu contohnya, pembahasan suatu undang-undang masih menggunakan pola pembahasan Daftar Inventarisasi Maslah (DIM). Metode pembahasan ini dilakukan dengan menyisir pasal per pasal, dimana dalam satu pasal kadang muncul beberapa masalah. Ironisnya, terkadang masalah dimaksud bukanlah substansi politik yang menjadi ranah parlemen tetapi lebih kepada tehnik perancangan dan bahasa perundang-undangan. Adalah fakta bahwa pembahasan kata “dan/atau” dapat memakan waktu berbulan-bulan untuk mendapat kata sepakat. Penggunaan model inipun mengharuskan Pemerintah berhadapan bukan dengan DPR sebagai satu lembaga tetapi berhadapan dengan sejumlah fraksi, mengingat DIM dari DPR terdiri dari sejumlah fraksi yang dapat dipastikan memiliki beragam pendapat. Sehingga dapat dipastikan secara teknis dan waktu pembahasan, metode ini memperpanjang penyelesaian suatu RUU.

Adapun supporting system bagi fungsi legislasi DPR pun masih sangat minim, selain jumlah Sumber Daya Manusia dengan keahlian di bidang ini yang tidak sebanding dengan beban legislasi DPR, pola perekrutan dan pembinaan SDM sendiri belum terintegrasi dengan baik. Hal ini diperburuk oleh ketiadaan mekanisme kerja dan standar baku dalam pelibatan system pendukung kinerja legislasi di lingkungan DPR. Kedua hal ini kiranya faktor penting keberhasilan kinerja legislasi. DPR selayaknya menyelesaikan “PR” ini sesegera mungkin.

Dari sisi substansi, Prolegnas disusun dengan mempertimbangkan landasan filosofis, sosiologis dan yuridis yang kuat sehingga posisinya sebagai media perencanaan pembangunan hukum nasional yang penting bagi kesinambungan pembangunan dalam rangka pencapaian tujuan Negara dapat tergambar dari kesesuaian antara arah kebijakan yang hendak dicapai dalam periode dimaksud dengan daftar RUU yang direncanakan. Penetapan 58 judul RUU seharusnya didasari dengan pertimbangan yang jelas dan logis. Hal ini menjadi catatan penting agar daftar Prolegnas tidak sekedar menjadi daftar “judul-judulan” atau daftar keinginan semata tanpa urgensi dan signifikansi. Semestinya setiap judul yang muncul berawal dari sebuah kajian mengenai urgensi dan kebutuhan akan RUU tersebut. Selanjutnya, 247 RUU Prolegnas jangka menengah 2010-2014 setidaknya searah dengan rencana pembangunan jangka menengah 2010-2014, begitu pula 58 RUU prioritas 2010 harus searah dengan program rencana kerja pemerintah tahun 2010.
Landasan yang menjadi urgensi dan tujuan dari setiap usulan RUU ini menjadi penting, bahkan untuk diketahui publik. Sebagai alasan mengapa RUU A masuk prioritas sementara RUU B tidak? Mengapa undang-undang yang baru disahkan dan berlaku satu atau dua tahun lalu harus diubah? Mengapa suatu RUU yang telah menjadi wacana publik secara nasional dan telah beberapa kali masuk dalam prolegnas sebelumnya tidak diakomodir? dan seterusnya.

Ketentuan Pasal 104 ayat (7) TATIB memagari usulan Prolegnas dengan kejelasan urgensi dan tujuan pengusulan, dimana ada keharusan untuk memuat: a. urgensi dan tujuan penyusunan; b. sasaran yang ingin diwujudkan; c. pokok pikiran, ruang lingkup, atau objek yang akan diatur; dan d. jangkauan serta arah pengaturan; bagi setiap RUU yang diusulkan dalam Prolegnas. Ini tidak semata-mata membantu pengambil keputusan untuk memilih RUU yang sesuai, namun juga merupakan informasi yang layak dan wajib diketahui publik sebagai pihak yang kelak akan mengimplementasikan undang-undang dan bahkan dikenai beban pidana atas pelanggaran ketentuan didalamnya

Namun tampaknya ketentuan ini belum dapat sepenuhnya dipatuhi mengingat RUU yang diajukan oleh masyarakat, fraksi, komisi, atau DPD yang kesemuanya melalui pintu DPR belum seluruhnya dilengkapi dengan persyaratan tersebut. Sebagai perbandingan, dari pintu pemerintah semua RUU Prolegnas yang menjadi usulan pemerintah telah memenuhi persyaratan tersebut.

Terpenting dari semua itu, Prolegnas disusun guna mengakomodasi aspirasi dan kebutuhan hukum masyarakat. Sehingga diluar pertimbangan yuridis (perintah UUD dan UU lainnya) dan pertimbangan teknis seperti tersusunnya Draft RUU dan NA, atau kesesuaian dengan arah kebijakan pembangunan hukum nasional maka usulan suatu RUU yang secara politis kemudian digawangi oleh DPR, merupakan bentuk pengakomodasian kepentingan dan kebutuhan hukum masyarakat.

Kebutuhan hukum masyarakat menghendaki pembangunan hukum sesuai dengan harapan dan rasa keadilan masyarakat, hukum yang sungguh-sungguh melindungi kepentingan rakyat bukan hanya orang perseorangan atau kelompok tertentu, serta hukum yang melindungi kepentingan dalam masyarakat. pemilihan terhadap prioritas RUU sangat berkolerasi dengan tingkat kepekaan politik legislator. Karenanya dibutuhkan kepekaan politik terhadap persoalan di masyarakat untuk dapat menentukan prioritas. Penentuan prioritas seharusnya tidak semata persoalan tawar menawar politik, atau kelengkapan teknis semata tapi memiliki pertimbangan filosofis, sosiologis dan yuridis yang nyata.sehingga public hearing menjadi penting dalam rangka penyusunan Prolegnas sebagai bentuk paritipasi publik dalam rencana pembangunan hukum dan perundang-undangan nasional.

Harus ada komitmen untuk menjaga konsistensi terhadap kesepakatan yang termuat dalam Prolegnas sekaligus terus menerus melakukan evaluasi agar kerja legislasi,-yang saat ini secara konstitusional telah dimandatkan pada DPR (legislative heavy)- tidak lagi menjadi legislasi tanpa peta kebijakan, legislasi yang tanpa karakter. Sebuah kerja berat yang bukan tidak mungkin terealisasi.

* Penulis adalah Tenaga Perancang Undang-Undang (Legislative Drafter) Setjen DPR-RI, alumni Melbourne Law School of Melbourne University.

Referensi:
* Undang-Undang No. 10/2004 tentang Pembentukan Peratutan Perundang-undangan
*Peraturan DPR RI No.1/DPR RI/2009 tentang Tata Tertib
*Keputusan DPR RI No.41A/DPR RI/I/2009-2010 tentang Penetapan Persetujuan Prolegnas 2010-2014
*Keputusan DPR RI No.41B/DPR RI/I/2009-2010 tentang Prolegnas RUU Prioritas Tahun 2010

Annotated Evaluative Bibliographies: on “Legislative Drafting” Topic

Ackerman, Alice B 1997, Drafting Legislative Intent Statement, The Legislative Lawyer, Vol.11 No.1, Winter 1997, pp.1-4. This article mentions clearly 5 guidelines in making legislative intent statements. Drafters should identify carefully the policy of the use of these statements by checking the manual, memoranda, or unwritten procedures for how such statements should be written, then clearly understand the purpose of the statement. The next step is recognizing how the statements are valued in any statutory construction act relevant to the state. Lastly, the drafter should be acquainted with court decisions in the state concerning to legislative intent statements. I obviously agree with the writer’s hope that these guidelines will be valuable for legislative drafters, of course after they adjust to the principle rules of their own state law system.

Campbell, Lisbeth 1996, Legal Drafting Styles: Fuzzy or Fussy?, Murdoch University Journal of Law, Vol.3, No.2, July, pp. 1-7. This article states lucid differences between “fuzzy” and “fussy” law drafting styles. Campbell explains the detailed distinctions of both styles, particularly in a judicial approach of statutory constructions, which are based on two different traditions (civil law and common law). Campbell argues that there are distinctive judicial attitudes, political expectations and legal procedures, which are being a reason behind the divergences. The advantages and disadvantages of both drafting systems are described clearly and smoothly. The author refers to other sources for every single point; therefore this is very helpful for readers who want to do profound research on the same topic. Campbell also presents such interesting discussion on the drafting style transition by considering the accuracy of purpose of law making. There are some possibilities and requirements to alter drafting styles appropriately.

Payne, Jery 2005, The Drafting Critique, The Legislative Lawyer, Vol. XVII, Issue.2, pp. 2-3. The writer criticizes people who contradict between “clarity” and “accuracy” in drafting (between fuzzy and fussy styles, between common and civil law). Payne supports his argument with his own experiences. He believes that realistic dilemmas are almost illusive. There is no guarantee that using long sentences will make a draft more accurate. The extra words create extra chances for misapprehension. On the other hand, drafter cannot always make a simple sentence for a multifaceted problem. Drafters should not sacrifice clarity to get accuracy. A certain level of accuracy is important, but it is almost impossible to obtain perfect precision. Even though his notions look ambiguous, I think he tries to balance among the different ideas. Drafting law is like making an art, while the art of writing is finding the most favorable number of words to communicate as much accuracy as possible to the reader. Writing law briefly can be also grateful in appearance. He reminds us that the main purpose of drafting is to communicate a rule effectively; we can choose the appropriate way to accomplish this goal.

Stark, Jack 2005, Drafting Errors, The Legislative Lawyer, Vol. XVIII, Issue.2, pp. 3-6. Stark presents some drafting errors, which annoy legislative drafters. He suggests several tactics to overcome the mistakes. Previously, he mentions two propositions from different schools of law about the problem and the solution, which he himself absolutely disagrees, then he demonstrates several reasons for his negative response. In fact, his strategies are not always suitable for every case. In the conclusion, the author fairly states that there are other strategies to diminish the drafting mistakes. He believes that drafters can find them then learn how to revise and avoid them.

“Drafting Errors”

An Article Review towards Jack Stark’s Article

According to Jack Stark in his article, “Drafting Errors”, (2005,3-6) drafting errors such as “technical mistakes, a failure to follow drafting conventions … constitutional rules of drafting”, could be a potential problem in the drafting process. Legislative drafters are annoyed by these errors, especially when they find them after the endorsement of the bill, because, after the law is enacted, people cannot correct them easily. Drafters think that a better awareness of this problem and some mechanical means will reduce the occurrence of mistakes.

Stark (2005,3) explains that there are two schools of thought on this problem. Firstly, the Plain Language School proposes that people of democratic countries are supposed to be able to understand the rule by reading the law, which should be easy to do, and the drafter has the main role of drafting understandable law. This school says that the main drafting error is because the writer disobeys one of the rules of clarity. This could happen when drafters use long sentences and unusual words in making law. However, Stark argues that their propositions look reasonable if we take a quick look but they are improbable at a second glance because following their rules does not eliminate drafting errors. In fact, this analysis leads to skepticism about the Plain Language principles. Another opinion, the Reader Expectation School, alleges that the purpose of drafter as a writer is “to fulfill reader’s expectations”, to make communication easy. (Stark 2005, 3) This school of thought says that a drafting error is placing material in a wrong way that results in failure to communicate with a reader. Again, Stark thinks there is deviation because just like the Plain Language School, this school’s opinion on drafting errors does not make a statute malfunction either.

Stark (2005,3) offers the word “malfunction” to examine drafting errors. Since drafting errors do not carry out “the desired function” of a statute and the accuracy is the most important virtue in law drafting, drafters need the drafting tactics to perform one or more statute functions accurately.
The first tactic is understanding that the five functions (“forbid, authorize, require, state the conditions of three behavioral directives, state of the consequences of obeying or breaking the behavioral directives” (Stark 2005,3)) are the statutes main substance. Related to this tactic, drafters should make sure that the functions work accurately by writing proper sentences and putting the most important part in the right place.
A second way is writing in long sentences which will help to connect the five functions, for instance, to link the conditions and behavioral directives. (Stark, 2005:3)

The third one is using definitions. Writing definitions is not only to make a more specific meaning of the terms but can be “loophole closers” that assist readers to avoid misreading. Furthermore, using definitions frequently will make it less possible to have inaccuracy because of false interpretation. (Stark 2005,6)
To conclude, the author states that there are other drafting tactics to eliminate the drafting mistakes. Drafters can find them first and then they can learn how to make up drafting errors and avoid them.

I agree with Stark’s opinion (2005,3) that drafting errors can disturb statutory drafters. Based on my experience as a legislative drafter, every one in a supporting team of the bill will be disappointed when they realize that there are some technical errors in the bill that we found after the enactment. Not only because people criticize it and show us how it should be, but sometimes technical errors have a greater influence than we think. For example, when we decide to use a particular word for “obligation term”, such as when we prefer to use “shall” or “must” (harus) rather than “oblige” (wajib). Although we have discussed among team members before making a decision to put “shall” or “must”, in fact, we put the wrong one. There are different meanings and consequences of each word. The rule, using “shall” or “must” usually results in administrative punishment if people break it. On the other hand, they could get even harder punishment if they break the rule using “oblige”.

Stark (2005,3) suggests many ways to eliminate these mistakes. A drafter can choose the appropriate tactic, because his tactics are not always suitable for every case. Deep analysis and comprehensive understanding of the errors are two solutions to abolish them. I think recognizing them is not only by following the rule of drafting but also by knowing the reason behind every sentence that we make. Sometimes the difficulty itself comes from different interpretations. The same words can create different meanings; it depends on the context in the sentence. That is why using definition will be very helpful.

Even though a drafter has fulfilled the rules or conventions of drafting in making a bill, technical errors could happen in the deliberation stage, when the parliament and government discuss it. Some changes could be made especially for some crucial and sensitive laws that are full of political interest. If parliament does not agree with the sentences or words that we choose, they have a right to change and choose the preferred ones, no matter what the reason is. Sometime they ignore the rule of drafting.

To sum up, I agree with the author (Stark 2005,6) that a drafter could prevent the occurrence of technical errors in the draft by examining some rules and tactics and doing careful analysis before the bill comes to the deliberation stage.

Reference:
Stark, Jack 2005, “Drafting Errors”, The Legislative Lawyer, vol. XVIII, no. 2, viewed 24 February 2006, .

The Critical Study on Public Participation Model in Legislation Process: A Case Study of Indonesia

Abstract

The effectiveness of participatory decision making has been examined in some research in different areas and societies; however there are ongoing discussions in this issue.  This paper aims to critically analyze the public engagement models as main component of policy making process in democratic societies and it will look at Indonesia as a case study, because in the transitional era,  after experiencing a reforming legal and political movement in 1998, Indonesia has sought to fulfill public rights to access and involvement in policy making process and create more participatory decision making. There are some established parameters to examine the ongoing practices which will assist Indonesia to achieve the ideal model.

*this article was written in the mid of 2006, an assignment for the EAP at Melbourne Uni…my first assignment indeed..:)



I. Introduction

Broad Overview

According to Smith (1983), “public participation encompasses a group of procedures designed to consult, involve, and inform the public to allow those affected by a decision to have an input into that decision” (cited in Rowe & Frewer, 2000, 6).  Furthermore, according to Huntington and Nelson political participation is “activity by private citizens designed to influence governmental decision-making”(1976, p. 4). Thus public participation is every method which aims to make people involved to policy making which will be a rule for them and impact their lives as well.

Public participation in policy making process both in local and national government level has already been as one requisite system in enhancing good governance, as a public control and a mean in educating people to the democratic culture. This practice has been spreading in some parts of the world as a result of globalization in politic and legal area. Nowadays, since people are more aware of their political rights, they strive for the wider public domain and proper mechanism to deliver their opinions, particularly regarding policy or decision making process.

Aim and Scope
This paper will critically analyze the public engagement models in legislation process and look at the practice of public involvement in legislation process in Indonesia as a case study. Indonesia will be a case study, because in the transitional era, after experiencing the political and legal system movement, there is found an unbalance relationship between government and public, in term of public rights to access policy making process. It is also one hot debatable Issue among academic people and NGO’s activists in Indonesia.





Structure of the Paper
This paper will discuss current theory and debate on this system, before discussion it prefaces some historical aspects and context. Profound analyze will look at Indonesia as a case study, the practice of its system and gap between concept and its accomplishment. This paper will be closed by some recommendations after getting conclusion.

II. Current Theory and Debate


History and Context

Participation means activities of the citizen as individual in political life, not as a professional but as a private citizen which are intended to influence decision making process, particularly in public authorities’ matters. In term of participation forms, public can engage in ‘electoral activity’, ‘lobbying’, ‘organizational activity’, or ‘contacting’. These types may be legal or illegal, for instances, the electoral activity may take form bribery, intimidation and so on. In some countries, lobbying activity is allowed but it does not in other countries and some times public involve in violence for struggling in affecting governmental decision (Huntington & Nelson1976, pp. 4-13).

The practice of public participation is supposed to be a phenomenon of development in the society. According to Huntington and Nelson, generally, the scope, intensity and bases of political participation are indicators which differ between the traditional society and the modern one. Furthermore, Daniel Lerner (1958) declared that, “traditional society, is non participant…Modern society is participant…” (cited in Huntington & Nelson, 1976, p. 43). However political participation itself appreciated differently in different societies. Regarding to the radical changes in Russian public life since 1986, there was changing public awareness and the political system expectation as well. In totalitarian system, public are treated as ‘passive observers’, they only have basic responsibility,  such as voting which aims to maintain the political stability , otherwise in democratic system, public must be alert and actively contribute toward the government performance, making sure that there are egalitarianism and fairness (Frost & Makarov, 1998).
In fact, there was a public involvement practice in Britain before twentieth century, an advanced relationship between the parliament and its public which were indicated by growing number of public ‘activism and access’. People had accessibility to get materials on parliament events and description of parliament performance in legislation function. Moreover they can give input and opinion about particular case which engage people as a witness in the interrogation. This connection was not simply in ‘electoral relationship’ but it takes more practical forms of public engagement with the parliament as law-making institution (Innes, 2005).





Current Theory and Debate 
Issue on public involvement in legal making process emphasizes on effectiveness of this system and improvement on the methods. There are different models and character of legal involvement. According to Beierle (1998), every perspective favors different models of participation. At least there are three perspectives in environmental area; managerial perspective which favors the survey methods, the pluralist perspective tends to have stake holder mediation while the popular one is likely a citizen consultative group. All those perspectives usually use traditional participatory mechanism; such as public hearing, public comment, and advisory committee, one-way flows of information for instances; survey, focus group, and public education, collaborative decision making and conflict resolutions mechanism by mediation and regulatory negotiation, and innovative form of public deliberation (citizen juries and consensus conferences). (Beierle, 1998)

However, in science and technology policy, public participation has been formed in vary ways and a number of level. the simple method is just “one-way flow information” or “top down communication”, which take form as referenda, public hearing, and public opinion survey and more active model which public engage in decision making process as representative and contributor for the rule content in “two-way information exchange” and dialogue, such as negotiated rule making in ‘working committee’, consensus conference, citizens’ jury/ panel, public advisory committee and focus groups (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). Furthermore the UK government uses “IT-based methods, combined geographical information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria evaluation techniques” to involve the public in the decision-making process (Rowe & Frewer, 2000).
Silverman (2006) found that The USA and Canada adopt different methods in how the regions’ municipalities involve public in decision making process. This distinction based on the sources of pressure which are local elected official, the general public, social service and grassroots organization, and block club, to enlarge public participation and staff, budget and neighborhood characteristics of municipalities. Local policy processes in Canada attain more public involvement as a result of local elected official and general public role, while in America seems that social services and block club are greater participation supporters. From four types of public participation which are open government technique, such as annual meeting and providing a web site for communicating with public, public participation technique by providing strategic planning training and advisory board, neighborhood empowerment technique and voluntarism and public engagement technique, statistically Canada use them more than the USA, moreover the two types (open government and voluntarism) are used more significantly in Canada than in the USA. It implies that Canadian municipalities have more frequent contact with their people than the USA. (Silverman, 2006, p.148)



Key Principles

Some established research on efficacy of public participation methods have examined the method in term of the outcome and the technique of how the model runs. Moreover, Rowe and Frewer (2000) offer two major criteria in its evaluation; ‘acceptance criteria’ and ‘process criteria’. For acceptance criteria, there are some measurements; representativeness, independence, early involvement, influence, and transparency. While process criteria consists of accessibility criterion, task and definition, structured decision making criterion and cost-effectiveness criterion.

Rowe & Frewer (2000) argue that in term of fulfilling the whole ‘acceptance criteria’, public participation method should involve the participants from definite representatives of the proposed public,  should be conducted in free and independent way for comply the independence criteria, should be no pressure from any sponsors or parties whose political or economic intentions,  should be engaging public in the process soon as possible, so that the assessment is still significant for the intended problem and there is also authenticity of the resulted out come on guiding principle. Lastly, the process should be transparent, public have free access to get information on ongoing process and the final decision. On the other hand, for ‘process criteria’, the procedure should provide accessible resources for the participants to accomplish their report excellently. Moreover, they are also provided of understandable description on their duty and its characteristics. Thus, the participant should be familiar with appropriate mechanism in decision making process, by using configuration or demonstration on particular theory, technique or method. The procedure also should fulfill the cost-effectiveness, because cost is key concern, it usually calculated from money and time valuation compared to the result or effect on out put.

In environmental regulatory system, there is common knowledge that only few people have basic and profound knowledge on environmental issues. It means there are limited participants that can be chosen to be representative of public. In order to overcome this constraint, the regulator should have clear purpose as evaluation framework in public participation process by choosing participant appropriately and run the program effectively. According to Beierle (1998), there are six ‘social goals’ which can be parameters in evaluation of efficacy the process. In term of well-functioning environmental regulatory system, the first goal is educating and informing the public on particular issue and the procedure itself. Secondly, the goal is focusing more on educating public agencies by integrating public values, assumptions, and preferences while creating regulations. Third goal is enhancing the quality of decision especially in substantive matters. Another goal is developing people trust to the institutions, it must be difficult to measure trust but it is important thing for long term improvement of the regulation. Subsequently, there is goal to minimize divergence among stakeholders by examining whether the communication and cooperation improve or worsen during and after the process. Last goal is the cost-effectiveness in term of money, time, risk and opportunity cost (Beierle, 1998)


IV. Indonesia as a Case Study


Context of the case study 


Since the falling of “new order regime’ and the amendment of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia, Indonesia experienced transitional period in politic and legal system which result in some new regulations. The most important thing is that legislative power moved from the executive body to the legislative body. The parliament as people representative has more power to propose and make law; consequently people have more power to engage in legislation process. Parliament has responsibility to bring and sound people aspiration, particularly in law making process. In additions, Article 28 F of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia state that “Everybody has the right to communicate and the right to information to develop his/her personal and social environment, and has the right to seek, receive, possess, keep, develop, and give the information by any means”, and government has responsibility to provide them. In additions, the constitution also state that “sovereignty is in the hands of the people” (The 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia, Article 1), in order that, one way to implemented the people political supremacy is by extensively open the public domain in legal system.

In term of legislation making process, before amendment of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia, some methods of public participation had been conducted by legislators such as public hearing, survey or field research to get basic data from society on particular topic. But there was limited access for public to involve; they had no right to give their opinion actively and only few of people and specific one who participated in this process. Usually, the regulatory agency involves the experts and academic people in this stage. Further more, the government regulation which states that government can involve public in legislation making process especially in preparation stage is not significant one. there is no obligation to do so. However this government regulation has lower level in legislation hierarchy so that the legislators tend to avoid this rule and there is no sanction for unfulfilling that regulation. Another important thing about this issue is that most of people do not have knowledge that they have possibility to involve in this process and deliver their input for particular laws; because government does not disseminate this knowledge for common people.

Current Practice
Indonesian law recognizes the public right to information at certain levels and in various laws. There are around 17 Laws that have had a legal impact on public access to information possessed by public institutions. Unfortunately, these laws do not give strong recognition to wide public access to information. In general, these laws do not explicitly state standards for exemptions to disclosure requirements. Furthermore, they do not provide mechanism for getting information, appeal mechanism itself, which bodies in charge of appeal assessment, sanctions of blocking the right to information and other supporting item, for instance specific law in this issue such as a freedom of information act. (Khatarina, 2001)

In 2004, the Parliament of Indonesia enacted the Law Making Process Act (Law No.10/2004), stated that people have right to give input orally or written regarding to preparation or deliberation of law and local regulation draft (Article 53). One step ahead, people rights to give input on the legislation process (local and national) particularly in preparation and deliberation stage is declared in specific law. Unfortunately, there is no clear explanation in this article about the procedure to appeal input and opinion.

In fact, there are several procedures in this practice. People can engage in legislation process from the preparation stage till the evaluation stage. In preparation stage, legislative drafters as supporting system conduct survey and field research to make an academic report as guidance in law drafting process. Parliament consider law proposal from the public as individual or group that completed with its academic report and draft. After discussion in its legislation council, they may reject or accept its proposal with or without any amendment to be one initiative proposal of the parliament to discuss in sitting period. Parliament also conducts public hearing, seminar, and dissemination of law draft to get input from public (Setyowati,et al, 2003). Unfortunately, public accessibility to involve in law making process finish till this stage. They have no access to involve in deliberation stage, usually this stage are closed for public. Only few law deliberations are accessible for public, such as deliberation of citizenship law in 2006 (Suyudi, 2006). In the evaluation stage, people have right to appeal and review the enforcement and effectiveness of law and local regulations, the review and appeal mechanism has regulated in the Supreme Court regulation No.2/2002 and the Constitutional Court Act No. 24/2004. ( Setyowati,et al, 2003)

Gaps in current theory to actual practice

Based on ‘acceptance criteria’ and ‘process criteria’, the practice of public engagement in Indonesia still has some weaknesses. In term of proposing law draft, some NGOs that usually sponsor the proposal funded by particular organization. It means there are definite motives behind this sponsor and it will reduce independence criterion. In deliberation process, public have limited access on ongoing process because this session usually is not available for public, especially in final decision session. Even if sometimes it is opened for public, public have no right to involve directly. Limited access on the information of the procedural matter is another basic problem for ideal public engagement model. In spite of technical constraints, human resources and financial problem are main causes of this drawback. In fact, public is not really familiar on this issue and government do not disseminate this information either. The ongoing models in Indonesia still find an appropriate one, it is realized that based on cost-effectiveness parameter those practices are time and money consuming and less effective compared to the out come.

Further more, According to ‘the six social goal’ from Beierle (1998), the efficacy of public participation practice in Indonesia should be improved. For instance; educating and informing public goal is not accomplished yet, there are many homework for Indonesian government to complete this goal. In this transitional period, they should work harder. This also notifies the government agencies which involve in the process to improve capability and skill to support participatory legislation process. The institutional capacity building of supporting bodies also one important requirement to enhance goal achievement. If the intermediary agencies, such as the Secretariat General of Parliament and the Law and Justice Department can perform their best services both for legislator (parliament and president) and public. It will result in public trust and harmonic relationship among each party. 

IV. Conclusion


In global context, development on the effective model and mechanism of public participation is still debatable. However this system still tries to find the ideal one regarding to the effective outcome. Every society and area have typical model but some general criteria and goals which are created to examine the efficacy of those models are applicable for general case. The final aim of the evaluation is to enhance the more effective model and the more effective outcome. In term of Indonesia, the gap of ideal theory and its accomplishment can be reduced by improving some weaknesses and examine the on going model with some established parameters. It will be very helpful to learn and doing comparative study in some countries which have more advanced and effective model in public engagement and participative decision making experience.





























References


Beierle, C. T. 1998, ‘Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals’, (Discussion Paper 99-06), Resources For The Future, Washington, Viewed June 27 2006,
Frost, S. & Makarov, D. 1998, ‘Changing Post-Totalitarian values in Russia through Public Deliberation Methodology’, Political Science & Politics, Vol.31,No.4. (Dec., 1998), pp.775-781. Viewed June 27 2006,
Huntington, S P. &  Nelson, J. M. 1976, ‘No Easy Choice; Political Participation in Developing Countries’, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Innes, J. 2005, ‘Legislation and Public Participation 1760-1830’ in David Lemmings (ed.), The British and their Laws in Eighteenth Century, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, pp.102-132.
Khatarina, J. 2001,  ‘Indonesian NGO Movement for Public Access to Information & the Struggle for Enactment of a Freedom of Information Act’, Paper presented in ‘Conference on Freedom of Information and Civil Society in Asia’, Japan.
Ladd, B S. & Marshall, V. 2004, ’Participation in Decision Making: a Matter of Context?’, The Leadership and Organizational Journal, Vol.25, No.8, 2004, pp.646-662 Viewed July 7, 2006, is Opened for Public’ ‘Parlemen.net’ March 6, 2006, viewed July 10 2006
The 1945 Constitution of The  Republic of  Indonesia
The Law No.10/2003 on The Legislation Making Process Act.