kata saya

Vote For NO to Information Criminalization

Ahmad Faisol and Dyah Ayu Sitoresmi*

There is a hope to every information user; the Freedom of Information Act will assure them to access public information. But ironically, this act has a tendency also to enforce them into jail. It is possible if we take a look a while to the article of Freedom of Information (FOI) bill which under discussion in the parliament.

Article 49 explains that “A person who was expressly misuses of public information and/or departed an information beneficial as explained in article 5 (1) condemned with two years in jail and/or a 30,000,000 Rupiah-fine.

Plus, the article 5 (1) inform that “information user has an obligation to use public information adjust with the law.”

***

Since the beginning, the article 49 about sanction to the misuses of public information had already debatable in parliament. In working committee between parliament and government in September 10, 2007 as example, agreed to cancel this article from FOI. The reason was this article too muzzling public courageous to access information. Noting here was Government had difficulty in giving a reason to his objection.

The strange thing was, in abbreviation meeting among parliament members, September 20, 2007, this article emerged in FOI. Regarding to one of parliament member said, it happened when the government bargained to nullify the article 50 (sanction to public agency) if the parliament completely canceled the article 49. It put the parliament into dilemmatic.

In fact, the main point of this FOI is enforced public agency or public functionary to prepare information. Hence, the parliament finally decided to put the article 49 and 50 together.

***

If we concern to the process, there is no binding reason to put article 49 into FOI. Why? Logically, a person can not be accused to the misuses of public information while the information has been public. If the information control and its clarification belong to public functionary, the sanction should be directed to them.

For instance, FOI Act in other nations also consist of sanction to public functionary who dereliction to provide information. Moreover, the sanction supposed to be paid from their salary (not from public estimation).

This stipulation is made to determine public functionary obligation openness and allow public access to get information. On the contrary, there is no single nation around the world put article about sanction on its FOI act.

***

Consciously or unconsciously, the parliament decree to agree of government interest put sanction into user, has created some negative atmosphere.

Public will think a thousand times before access and use information. Even though government and parliament explained this sanction will create an opportunity to entice public functionary, but still the user will apprehensive to information criminalization. Exceedingly, the formulas from those articles are unclear and detail ness.

Before this FOI bill valid, public must become a reminder to parliament and government for the negative impact to the article 49. Some parliament member who concerned to this bill, promised to put up this article in synchronization meeting.

Parliament also offers to arrange a fit and proper test to this bill. Public must evaluate the FOI substances whether it had already appropriate to guarantee right public to access information or not.

We know yet the government act through this article. But thing for sure is, enforcing the bill by ignoring the impact to the public as same as criminalization to the public information.

Here, the FOI will become a decline to our right to freedom of expression and get information; not a progress. So, are we still saying ‘yes’ to this article??

Ahmad Faisol,researcher at The Institute for The Sudies on Free Flow of Information (ISAI), Jakarta.

Dyah Ayu Sitoresmi, assistant of Parliament member.