Category Archives: HAM

Complicity oleh Korporasi

Seorang petani di Tebo-Jambi ditemukan tewas di kawasan perkebunan sawit milik PT Wira Karya Sakti, yang merupakan anak perusahaan Asia Pulp and Paper (Kompas, 3/3/15). Ada dugaan kejadian ini terkait dengan konflik antara korporasi dengan masyarakat lokal. Bila dugaan ini benar, maka korporasi terkait seharusnya dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban karena turut mengambil bagian (complicity) atas terjadinya pelanggaran hak asasi manusia.

Laporan Komnas HAM (2014) menemukan bahwa korporasi menempati posisi kedua tertinggi sebagai pihak yang diadukan atas pelanggaran HAM sepanjang tahun 2013, dengan 937 jumlah pengaduan. Konflik lahan di area perkebunan dan pertambangan menjadi permasalahan utama. Bila isu pelanggaran  HAM oleh korporasi dan complicity tidak mendapatkan perhatian serius–bahkan terus dibiarkan–bukan tidak mungkin korporasi akan menjadi entitas pelanggar HAM tertinggi dalam waktu dekat.

Jatuhnya korban nyawa yang terkait dengan kegiatan usaha korporasi bukan baru pertamakali terjadi di Indonesia. Tujuh penduduk lokal meninggal akibat konflik lahan perkebunan di Mesuji-Lampung. Seorang petani meninggal tertembak di pelabuhan Sape-Bima saat aksi penolakan operasi tambang. Di Timika-Papua, seorang pekerja tambang tewas ditembak saat demo menuntut kenaikan gaji.

Di level internasional, pelangaran HAM terkait kegiatan usaha korporasi telah ada sejak lama. Enam puluh tahun yang lalu petinggi korporasi di Jerman dinyatakan bersalah karena mensuplai produk gas beracun untuk digunakan di kam konsentrasi. Sampai saat inipun korporasi masih mengambil bagian pada kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM di banyak negara.

Misalnya, korporasi pertambangan menggunakan angkatan bersenjata pemerintah negara di tempatnya beroperasi untuk mengusir dan mengintimidasi penduduk lokal. Ada juga korporasi yang mensuplai senjata dan logistik bagi kelompok bersenjata anti pemerintah,  untuk menjamin pasokan sumber daya alam dan mineral tertentu. Korporasi produsen alat dan pakaian olahraga menggunakan pemasok lokal yang mempekerjakan anak-anak.

International Commission of Jurist (2008) merumuskan korporasi dapat berada dalam katagori complicity bila memenuhi setidaknya satu saja dari tiga kondisi. Pertama, korporasi menjadi penyebab atau berkontribusi terhadap terjadinya pelanggaran HAM. Kontribusi ini meliputi beberapa bentuk perbuatan, yaitu: tindakan korporasi membuat pelanggaran terjadi (enables); tindakan korporasi membuat pelanggaran dan akibatnya menjadi lebih buruk (exacerbates); atau korporasi memfasilitasi sehingga mempermudah terjadinya pelanggaran (facilitates).

Kedua, korporasi mengetahui (knowledges), atau seharusnya mengetahui bahwa operasi usahanya dapat melanggar hak orang lain. Sehingga dengan pengetahuannya tersebut, korporasi semestinya dapat mengambil langkah agar pelanggaran dapat dihindari (forseability). Ketiga, kedekatan hubungan (proximity) antara korporasi dengan pelaku pelanggaran.

Jangkauan terbatas

Sayangnya instrumen hukum kita masih belum mampu menjerat pelanggaran hak asasi oleh korporasi dengan menggunakan kriteria complicity diatas. Kejadian penculikan, penganiayaan, dan pembunuhan petani lokal oleh sekuriti korporasi akan ditangani sebagaimana perbuatan kriminal pada umumnya. Sedangkan pelanggaran atas hak untuk hidup, bebas dari penyiksaan dan rasa takut akan dianggap seolah-olah tidak pernah terjadi.

Alih-alih menjerat korporasi untuk bertanggungjawab atas pelangaran hak asasi, membawa pelaku ke pengadilan pelanggaran HAM bukanlah perkara yang mudah. Benar bahwa Komnas HAM berwenang melakukan penyelidikan pro justitia dalam kasus pelanggaran berat–diantaranya adalah kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Namun pelanggaran berat dalam katagori ini harus memenuhi dua unsur utama, yaitu meluas dan sitematik. Tanpa kehadiran elemen-elemen ini, Komnas HAM terbatas hanya dapat mengeluarkan rekomendasi.

Keterbatasan jangkauan ini menjadi salah satu penghambat utama dalam menjerat korporasi untuk bertanggungjawab atas pelanggaran hak asasi. Lemahnya kekuatan memaksa dari rekomendasi sering dipakai sebagai alasan untuk menghindar. Sebagai contoh, rekomendasi Komnas HAM tentang terjadinya 18 pelanggaran hak asasi di kasus lumpur Lapindo tidak mendapatkan perhatian serius dari pemerintah. Akibatnya, korporasi yang terkait dengan semburan lumpur seperti tidak terjamah oleh hukum.

Perlunya rencana aksi

Tingginya jumlah pengaduan pelanggaran oleh korporasi mengindikasikan adanya permasalahan serius dalam relasi bisnis dan hak asasi di Indonesia.

Isu penghormatan, perlindungan, dan pemenuhan hak sosial dan lingkungan masih dipisahkan dari upaya pemerintah menarik sebanyak mungkin modal korporasi. Ketergantungan akan modal menciptakan relasi tidak sehat antara pemerintah dengan korporasi.

Pemerintah akan cenderung menggunakan cara represif guna melindungi  kepentingan pemodal (Blanton & Blanton: 2007). Akibatnya, kegiatan usaha korporasi mendapatkan berbagai insentif dan kemudahan, sedangkan akses masyarakat lokal untuk mendapatkan haknya atas lahan dan mata pencaharian semakin dipersulit.

Mengurai permasalahan dalam relasi bisnis dan hak asasi manusia di Indonesia tidak bisa dilakukan dengan cara yang instan. Demikian pula penyelesaiannya tidak dapat sepenuhnya dibebankan kepada pemerintah semata. Diperlukan keterlibatan seluruh pemangku kepentingan dalam menyusun sebuah rencana aksi nasional (NAP). Setidaknya ada tiga manfaat yang dapat diambil dari adanya rencana aksi ini.

Pertama, memberikan klarifikasi  mengenai kewajiban negara dan tanggungjawab korporasi terhadap hak asasi. Kedua, menyediakan alat bagi manajemen resiko dan sistem peringatan dini bagi kegiatan usaha korporasi dengan resiko pelanggaran yang tinggi. Ketiga, membuka kesempatan bagi terjadinya kerjasama antara LSM, korporasi dan masyarakat korban dalam menyusun mekanisme pemulihan yang efektif. Keempat, memuat target capaian dan kriteria capaian yang jelas, serta adanya kerangka waktu bagi setiap tahapan dari capaian yang diharapkan.

Tentu saja penyusunan NAP bukan merupakan jaminan bagi menurunnya angka pelanggaran hak asasi oleh korporasi. NAP memerlukan keterlibatan seluruh pemangku kepentingan dalam implementasinya, karena itu kekuatannya bergantung pada proses dialog, pemahaman, dan kemauan untuk terus belajar serta memperbaiki kesalahan.

Hal yang paling mendesak saat ini adalah memastikan bahwa institusi pemerintahan dan pejabat-pejabat pemerintah bertindak selaras dengan kewajiban negara terhadap HAM.

Sehingga diharapkan pejabat yang menempati jabatan strategis di departemen yang berkaitan dengan kegiatan usaha korporasi memiliki komitmen yang sama dalam penghormatan terhadap hak masyarakat lokal, dan pelestarian lingkungan. Dengan itu semua, diharapkan korporasi dapat memiliki mekanisme internal untuk menghindar dari melakukan complicity.

Leave a comment

Filed under Complicity, HAM

Instead of Building Smelters in Indonesia, Why Not Renegotiate Royalties?

This article was first appeared in The Jakarta Globe on Tuesday, 04 March 2014. Click here>> for detail.

It has been confirmed that the government is not going to withdraw the regulation that imposes progressive tax on the export of unprocessed mineral ore. The government is confident that this regulation will effectively force mining corporations to build processing facilities in Indonesia by the end of 2016. The main objective of this regulation is to boost state income from the mining sector. To be exempted from this export levy, a number of mining companies have already committed to building smelters.

Weighing the benefits

There are pros and cons to this regulation. Those who support it argue that it is time to stop selling our natural resources for the benefit of private foreign companies. They say Indonesia should get a bigger share of the money made from the export of our mineral resources.

Those opposing the regulation believe that the imposition of high taxes on the export of ore would force mining companies to scale back production. Mining companies may then have to lay off significant numbers of employees, which may trigger social unrest.

The mineral saga is not going to be over soon. Mining concession holders are considering foreign arbitration. But the government does not feel threatened — neither by the arbitration threat, nor by the possible social unrest that may result from rising unemployment in the mining sector. Also, we shouldn’t forget that this is an election year, which means the mineral ore conflict could be used by political groups to obtain short-term advantages.

To a certain extent, the mining companies’ opposition to the high export levy is reasonable. Within the five years grace period provided for in Law No. 4 of 2009, the government has done very little to ensure that the relevant companies were taking the necessary steps in anticipation of the mineral ore export ban. However, the government’s goal of boosting state income from the export of minerals does deserve our full support. This country needs to gain more from the extraction of its natural resources.

Yet, despite the government’s good intention, it remains unclear exactly how much the state is expecting to gain from forcing companies to build smelting facilities in the country. Additionally, it is doubtful whether the government has taken into consideration the environmental damage the country may bring upon itself as a result of the regulation.

Environmental impact

Article 33 of the Constitution states that Indonesia’s natural resources “shall be used to the greatest benefit of the people.” This is a rather broad concept, but fortunately the Constitutional Court has provided four conditions to test whether or not the objectives of the Constitution are met, relating to (1) the actual benefit of natural resources for the public; (2) the degree to which the benefits are distributed equally; (3) the level of public participation in determining the use of natural resources; and (4) the degree of respect for traditional rights in extracting the resources.

It’s easy to argue that the imposition of a progressive export tax and the development of local processing facilities would bring benefits, because state income will increase. Therefore, the first constitutional condition is met. However, turning to the second condition, problems arise because we cannot easily say that the current regulation would necessarily result in equal distribution of benefits. Among other things, the environmental costs must be considered in this respect.

The development of smelters may cause environmental damage, lead to changes in ecosystems and negatively affect human health. These are costs that have to be included in the government’s calculation. A 2012 study on the impact of the smelting industry in China by Xiuwu Zhang and other scientists found that the industry contributed to pollution of water and soil and had an adverse impact on human health.

Already, a number of Chinese investors have been showing interest in building smelting plants here. Indonesia had better learn from China’s experience, to make sure similar environmental problems do not occur here.

The government may argue that the development of smelter plants, and processing procedures later on, will follow strict environmental and health standards. However, in most of cases, environmental damage from corporate activities happens because the government has no effective surveillance mechanism. The haze problem in Sumatra is just one example of how the government has been unable to prevent companies from using fire to clear land. With the development of a smelting industry in Indonesia, plenty of people could be exposed to pollution in the air, water and soil. It is in this way that the smelting industry may not bring equal benefit to all people.

Renegotiating royalty payments

If the main objective of the government is indeed to increase the state income from the mining sector, there may be another option worth considering — one that does not carry significant risks.

The government may simply negotiate an increase in royalty payments from mining companies. There is no better time to renegotiate such a royalty increase than today, when our bargaining position is at its highest. Total royalty payments may be set to an amount equal to the additional income the government expects to obtain through the development of a local smelting industry. Companies may even be given two options: build a smelting plant or increase your royalty payments.

In conjunction with new royalty deals, the government may force companies to allocate more funds to corporate social responsibility and community development programs. This may also be a good time for the government to endorse the implementation of the 2011 UN Guiding Principle on Business and Human Rights, which may help to reduce conflicts in mining areas.

Regardless of what is decided, mining companies must realize that Indonesia today is a different country than it was few decades ago, when most of the mining contracts were signed.

It is up to the government to regulate how the mining industry should bring the greatest benefit for the Indonesian people. But the impact of the current export ban and smelter plans on the environment and our health must not be ignored.

Iman Prihandono is a lecturer and researcher in business and human rights at the Faculty of Law of Universitas Airlangga in Surabaya. Contact him at iprihandono@fh.unair.ac.id.

See also related article below:

Lead Poisoning Sickens 600 Kids in China

Desa kosong seluruh warga diungsikan PT Smelting Gresik sebar gas beracun (Villagers were evacuated as Poisonous Gas Leaks from PT Smelting Gresik, 07 Juli 2013).

Leave a comment

Filed under HAM

Milk contamination: Conflict between global corporations and public interest

This article was first published in The Jakarta Post on 9 March 2011, can be accessed through the link HERE

It is regrettable that the issue of infant formula milk contamination may only end up with a plan to conduct another investigative research. This plan clearly shows the government’s non-compliance to the Supreme Court’s verdict, which demanded three institutions publish a list of contaminated milk products distributed in 2003-2006.

To date, there have been no convincing reasons why the Health Ministry, the Food and Drug Supervisory Body (BPOM) and the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB) refused to abide by the verdict. The ministry assumes no obligation to publish, as it was not the institution that conducted the research, while IPB argues that they have no legal basis to publish its research findings to the public.

If viewed more closely, this case involves the interests of global corporations, and the foremost global producers of formula milk. Undoubtedly, there is a fear that these corporations will have to face legal suits filed by consumers when the research findings are disseminated. This does not include the decrease in worldwide consumer’s confidence in several leading brands that would also lead to a decline in companies’ profit.

In short, the adverse impact that would occur and litigation costs that must be paid by these corporations will be very big indeed. At the same time, the government’s dependence on foreign direct investments has also been so high. This situation explains why the Health Ministry chose to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court, and violated the public’s right to information.

The ability of global corporations in influencing the government’s public policies is not unusual. There are at least three different ways that are often carried out by global corporations in protecting their business interests in developing countries. And there have been many examples where the foreign corporation uses these means to secure their business activities in Indonesia.

First, foreign investment has the characteristics where capital can be transferred and factories can be relocated from one country to another. This situation requires host governments to maintain positive investment climate, because the opposite condition would lead to the relocation of capital to other countries.

It is common that when many foreign investors are threatening to relocate their operations to another country, the government will im-mediately take measures to amend regulations on labor, taxation and business permits. Unfortunately, in many cases these measures are taken without taking into consideration the social impacts that may follow.

Second, foreign investment activities are usually conducted in cooperation with politicians or people who have access to government. This cooperation is generally done through the mechanism of joint operation contracts or by allocating shares ownership for a national company that has a direct or indirect affiliation with political leaders or government officials.

This cooperation is required by global corporations to ensure that the parliament and government will not enact any law or regulation that could adversely impact their business interests.

For instance, there was a joint operation between an Australian mining company and a national company which has affiliations with the leader of a political party. These companies invested in a natural gas exploitation project in Sidoarjo, East Java. Apparently, this project has been stopped due to the mud flow. Perhaps, because of the political influence wielded by the national partners, that foreign company can safely withdraw from this project, regardless of the fact that social and economic impacts are still felt by the communities affected by the mud flow up until recently.

Third, when unfavorable situations occur, foreign corporations will usually request their government initiate a “G to G” settlement. Indeed, there is no guarantee that the host government would immediately change its policy, but the bargaining power owned by governments from developed countries may at least force governments in developing countries to delay or replace the policy out of concern for the one that is less harmful to the interests of foreign investment.

The use of a G to G settlement by the foreign investor in an attempt to rescue their business operations in Indonesia is not unprecedented. This can clearly be seen when the government of one developed country express its disappointment against the ruling of the Commercial Court on the bankruptcy of a subsidiary of a Canadian insurance company in 2002. Eventually, that ruling was annulled by the Supreme Court. Whether it is true or not, the public might have the opinion that foreign pressure had influences the final ruling in the case.

So what should be done by the Indonesian government in addressing the pressures of global corporate power? The main problem in this country is the lack of legal certainty. The three ways taken by global corporations in securing their investment activity as described above occurs precisely because they believe that the rule of law in Indonesia cannot provide certainty on the limits of rights and obligations of persons and legal entities.

In the milk contamination case for instance, it is unclear who has the obligation to announce the research findings which may affect public safety. This is not to mention the issue of the legal protection of the researchers, and the producers themselves.

Obviously, producers must also be given equal opportunities to explain and prove that their product is safe for consumption. Unfortunately, the government has not yet provided a clear and fair accountability mechanism in this issue.

The lack of legal certainty would make the government become more powerless in regulating global corporations. There have been many cases in which companies with global brands have been willing to pay compensation and recall their products from the market. Similarly, there was a case where a global corporation in the mining sector was willing to abide by the court’s decision to make restitutions following a leak of one of its pipelines. Can the same thing also happen in Indonesia?

There are many things that must be done, but among the most important issues is legal certainty. A legal certainty must guarantee that any act detrimental to the interests of the public will be made accountable through a transparent and fair mechanism.

Leave a comment

Filed under HAM

Fitting Human Rights into the ASEAN-China FTA: Indonesian Perspective

Another version of this article was first published in The Jakarta Post daily news paper on 12 January 2009, see in more detail here>>>.

Trade Liberalization

Entering the year 2010 is marked by the entry into force of a free trade area agreement between ASEAN and China or also known as the ASEAN-China FTA. Unfortunately, not many commentators or even government agency specifically analyze the possible impact of this FTA agreement to the fulfillment of rights-human rights in Indonesia. In fact, there are many aspects of human rights that can be affected by the enforcement of this FTA, some of which are the rights to health and a healthy environment, right to work and to earn a decent livelihood, the access to natural resources rights, and other social, economic, and cultural rights.

Because of space limitation, this article will not examine the impacts that can be caused by the FTA on all aspects of human rights which has been recognized under several legislations in Indonesia. The simple analysis addressed in this article on the linkages between the implementation of this FTA with the prospect of the fulfillment of human rights in Indonesia is expected to become inputs for the government and NGOs in formulating their policies. So that human rights fulfillment is not marginalized by trade liberalization reasons.

The ASEAN-China FTA was actually first agreed in 2001 in the ASEAN-China Summit which formulate a Framework on Economic Co-operation and to establish an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area. Under this framework, it was agreed to establish a free trade area within 10 years time. Furthermore, the agreement was then reinforced by the signing of Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Between ASEAN and the People’s Republic of China in Phnom Penh, on November 4, 2002, by the head of state and government of all ASEAN countries and the People’s Republic of China.

ASEAN-China FTA is not the first trade liberalization agreement which entered by Indonesia. Indonesia’s participation in regional and international trade agreement began with the AFTA in 1992, followed by its accession as member of the WTO, and by other agreements such as the ASEAN-Japanese FTA, Korea-ASEAN FTA, as well as bilateral agreement with Japan in Indonesia-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (IJ-EPA). These agreements could possibly be added by the EU-ASEAN FTA. The same possibility may also happen in the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA, both agreements are now still in the negotiation process.

Some commentators found that a number of trade agreements may potentially limits the fulfillment of human rights. IJ-EPA for example, got criticized because this agreement is considered to facilitate the entry of hazardous toxic waste to Indonesia (The Jakarta Post, 06/27/2008). Similarly, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA is considered to be expanding the opportunity on the ownership of land by foreigners, this is due to national treatment provision, in which foreign companies should be treated the same as those obtained by domestic companies in terms of land ownership (bilaterals.org , 02/04/2009).

The fulfillment of Human Rights

What about the ASEAN-China FTA? Would there be any impact from the implementation of this FTA on the fulfillment of human rights in Indonesia? There have been many objections raised by the industry associations and business on the implementation of this FTA, mainly because they are not ready yet to compete. Some analysts believe China’s international trade will only benefit more in this FTA, this is based on the deficit trade balance against China which continues for the last few years. But that is more to economic reasons, below are some reasons to describe why the FTA would potentially affect the fulfillment of human rights in Indonesia.

First, among the commodities that have to be liberalized are agriculture and fisheries products. However, the majority of Indonesia’s populations are very much depending in these two sectors. The possible entry of agricultural and fisheries products from China in a substantially lower price would be a direct threat to the fulfillment of the rights of Indonesian farmers and fishermen to work and earn a decent livelihood. In fact, the effect of these cheaper agricultural and fisheries products from China has already hit our farmers and fishermen even before this FTA enter into force (Antara, 30/12/2009).

The same situation will possibly be occurred in the manufacturing sector. The entry of goods at a lower price from China would make our key manufacturing industries unable to compete and will have to close his business or at least reduce its production capacity. This situation will not only result in the higher rates of termination of employment – which is estimated to  reached the figure of 7.5 million workers – but the harder competition for jobs will obviously lower the bargaining position of labor and workers. This situation will in turn make it too difficult for the workers to obtain their basic rights, such as the rights to a proper wages and compensation on termination.

Second, of course we still remember when the Indonesian Department of Health issued a ban on the circulation of food products, beverages and cosmetics imported from China. This was because they proved to be contained with chemicals which harmful to human. Likewise, it was also found that some elements in toy products come from China are made from harmful chemicals. The lower cost of producing goods in China seems to have a direct relationship with the poor health safety of these products. These experiences should become an important lesson for the government.

With tariff reduced to zero percent, it is inevitable that the number of imported goods from China will be significantly higher. The government should then strengthen the health standards of a product. However, this measure alone is not enough, governments will also need to reinforce its control mechanisms, imposing effective sanctions for non-compliance and provide direct and appropriate compensation for the victim. Without these four measures in hand, it is sufficed to say that the government may have ignored the rights of its citizens on healthy living and healthy environment.

Third, unlike the upcoming EU-ASEAN FTA which in its negotiating directive clearly stating that the establishment of a free trade area between the European Union and ASEAN will fully respect the implementation of “… international environmental and social agreements and standards”, the same provision does not exist in the ASEAN-China FTA. The lacks of guarantee to respect environmental and social rights in this FTA may put the environment and society in a vulnerable position.

As we all may have been aware, environmental standards in China are relatively low. Industrialization in China led to a higher level of air and water pollution. It is argued that China will more likely to overtake the United States as the largest producer of carbon emissions in the world (New York Times, 26/08/2007). With the entering of industrial machinery and investors from China, government must ensure that the environmental law and corporate social responsibility obligations are strictly observed. We certainly do not want the ASEAN-China FTA opens the way for the destruction of the environment and violations of social and cultural rights of the people by foreign investors.

Does not fit: But must be worn

Like fitting a new dress, it appears that ASEAN-China FTA does not entirely fit with human rights. This is because the implementation of this FTA may potentially hinder the fulfillment of human rights in Indonesia. There will be a lot of homework for governments, including ensuring the availability of jobs, the fulfillment of labor rights, environmental protection and respect for social and cultural rights. But the Indonesian government seems unlikely to back out of this agreement. Although it will feel a bit cramped, the human rights dress must not be unworn.

1 Comment

Filed under HAM

Ikrar Pejuang Hak Asasi Manusia

lapindo31Hari Air Sedunia tanggal 22 Maret lalu baru saja terlewatkan begitu saja, seolah masalah berkurangnya sumber dan pencemaran air bukan lagi isu penting. Bulan depan, hanya beberapa hari setelah Pemilu – yaitu tanggal 22 April akan ada kampanye Hari Bumi. Hanya sebulan sebelum jadwal Pilpres – tepatnya tanggal 5 Juni akan ada peringatan Hari Lingkungan Hidup Sedunia.

Sayangnya hampir tidak ada Partai yang mengangkat isu ini dalam materi kampanyenya. Kalaupun ada, masih sebatas ide dasar tanpa ada rencana aksi dan komitmen pelaksanaannya. menyambut Pemilu 2009 ini, tanggal 17-20 Maret 2009 di Wisma Makara UI, Depok, diadakan Kongres Pejuang HAM dengan peserta dari 24 Propinsi yang diprakarsai oleh KontraS, ICTJ, IKOHI, JATAM, JSKK, Kalyanamitra, KontraS, LBH Jakarta, PBHI Jakarta, SHI, Demos, Walhi, YAPPIKA, PRAXIS, Foker LSM Papua, KontraS Aceh, Koalisi NGO HAM Aceh, Federasi KontraS.

Berikut ini hasil dari Kongres tersebut berupa Ikrar Pejuang HAM :

Kami, Para Pejuang Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM), berasal dari 24 propinsi di Indonesia, berlatar belakang sebagai korban Pelanggaran HAM, baik hak Sipil Politik dan hak Ekonomi, Sosial, Budaya menyatakan:

1. Prihatin dengan tidak adanya kemauan politik Negara menyelesaikan berbagai masalah pelanggaran berat HAM dan memenuhi hak-hak dasar rakyat..

2. Prihatin dengan tidak adanya upaya-upaya Negara untuk memberikan perlindungan hak-hak dasar rakyat dari krisis ekonomi, kerusakan lingkungan hidup dan rasa aman.

3. Prihatin dengan penghilangan makna Pemilu, yang hanya menjadi rutinitas lima tahunan, dan ajang bagi elit politik warisan Orde Baru, serta kelompok pro status quo untuk melanggengkan kekuasaan.

4. Prihatin dengan calon legislatif, bakal calon presiden dan wakil presiden yang tersedia dalam Pemilu 2009, umumnya memiliki latar belakang sebagai pelaku pelanggar HAM, pelindung pelanggar HAM, atau yang tidak punya agenda HAM.

Berdasarkan keprihatinan di atas, kami para pejuang HAM Indonesia yang telah menggelar Kongres Pejuang HAM bertempat di Wisma MAKARA Universitas Indonesia (UI), Depok, Jawa Barat pada tanggal 17-20 Maret 2009, menyatakan:

1. Menyepakati bahwa penguatan dan konsolidasi gerakan rakyat/korban sebagai jalan keluar untuk memperkuat daya kritis, daya kontrol dan daya tawar politik yang sejati.

2. Menyerukan kepada masyarakat khususnya pemilih, untuk tidak memilih caleg, parpol dan capres/cawapres pelaku pelanggar HAM, pelindung pelanggar HAM, atau yang tidak punya agenda HAM.

3. Menyerukan kepada masyarakat khususnya pemilih, untukmemilih caleg, parpol, calon presiden dan calon wakil presiden yang pro HAM dan pro rakyat, serta tidak mudah percaya pada janji mereka yang tidak punya jejak rekam keberpihakan terhadap korban/rakyat.

4. Mengajak kepada rakyat yang memilih golput, untuk menjadi golput yang kritis dan aktif dengan mengorganisir diri, serta melakukan pendidikan politik.

5. Mendesak Negara untuk memenuhi kewajibannya untuk menuntaskan berbagai masalah pelanggaran berat HAM dan memenuhi hak-hak dasar pada sisa waktu pemerintahannya. Atas nama kebenaran dan keadilan, Ikrar pejuang HAM ini kami peruntukan bagi perubahan Indonesia yang lebih beradab, berprikemanusiaan dan berkeadilan sosial.

Depok, 20 Maret 2009

3 Comments

Filed under HAM

Dari Peringatan Hari HAM 2008

cimg3178Hari ini tanggal 10 Desember 2008 diperingati Hari HAM dan 60 tahun Deklarasi Universal HAM, diselenggarakan di depan kampus A Fakultas Hukum Universitas Airlangga. Nampak mahasiswa menyatakan dukungannya terhadap penegakan HAM dengan membubuhkan tandatangan. Tidak ketinggalan juga Wakil Rektor I Universitas Airlangga  Prof Dr Mohamad Zainuddin Apt. turut menyatakan dukungannya.

Acara kepedulian ini merupakan puncak dari “International Law Week 2008”cimg3193 yang diselenggarakan atas kerjasama Departemen Hukum Internasional FH Unair, FDI  dan KOMAHI. Dalam kesempatan ini dibacakan juga PETISI dari Civitas Akademika FH Unair dalam menyikapi perkembangan penanganan pelanggaran HAM di Indonesia.  Sebagai berikut:

PETISI DALAM PERINGATAN HARI HAM 2008

cimg3198Pada hari ini merupakan peringatan 60 tahun Deklarasi Universal Hak Asasi Manusia, dimana umat seluruh dunia seharusnya memperoleh perlindungan dan pemenuhan hak-hak dasarnya. Perkembangan Indonesia dalam konteks pasca 1998, atau 10 tahun proses reformasi, telah menempatkan isu HAM ini menjadi bagian tidak terpisahkan dalam gerakan demokrasi. Meskipun demikian, bangsa ini masih menghadapi sejumlah persoalan dominan mengenai HAM, antara lain:

Hak Sipil dan Politik

  1. Masih berkembangnya praktek kekerasan terhadap warga sipil yang diikuti oleh proses impunitas terhadap para pelanggar HAM;
  2. Dibiarkannya premanisme berbasis politik maupun keagamaan yang mengancam pluralisme Indonesia;
  3. Masih berjalannya praktek mafia peradilan yang melahirkan ketidakadilan proses hukum dan memenuhi prinsip peradilan yang adil (fair trial).

Hak Ekonomi, Sosial dan Budaya

  1. Masih banyaknya warga yang belum mendapatkan kesempatan hidup secara layak bagi kemanusiaan, sebagaimana ditemukan fakta meluasnya kasus busung lapar, penderita gizi buruk dan buruknya kualitas layanan kesehatan di sejumlah wilayah.
  2. Belum terpenuhinya hak atas pekerjaan layak, sehingga tidak sedikit terjadi eksploitasi terhadap buruh baik di dalam negeri maupun terhadap TKI di luar negeri. Apalagi disertai dengan kerangka pembangunan ekonomi yang berorientasi pada fleksibilitas pasar tenaga kerja yang justru memarginalisasi hak-hak dasar buruh.
  3. Semakin mahalnya biaya pendidikan sebagai akibat komersialisasi dan privatisasi badan hukum publik yang menyelenggarakan fungsi pendidikan.

Secara hukum, HAM justru banyak dilanggar dan dilemahkan melalui perangkat perundang-undangan sebagai akibat disain politik ekonomi Indonesia yang bertumpu pada kepentingan liberalisasi pasar. Dalam konteks inilah, pelanggaran HAM dilakukan secara sistematik dan terlegalisasi (legalized violation of human rights).

Atas dasar hal-hal tersebut, kami civitas akademika Fakultas Hukum Universitas Airlangga menyampaikan petisi yang mendesak kepada Pemerintah untuk segera:

  1. Memulihkan hak-hak rakyat melalui proses penegakan hukum yang adil dan tidak diskriminatif, yang dilakukan dengan menuntaskan kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM dan mematahkan mata rantai impunitas.
  2. Mengembangkan sistem jaminan sosial secara menyeluruh melalui program-program politik ekonomi yang berlandaskan kemanusiaan dan kesejahteraan sosial, bukan berorientasikan semata pada kepentingan liberalisasi pasar (neo-liberalisme).
  3. Mematuhi prinsip-prinsip hukum HAM internasional yang telah diratifikasi, yang tidak saja berdasar atas tekanan publik, melainkan atas dasar kemampuan negara untuk memberikan penghormatan, perlindungan dan pemenuhan HAM sebagai mandat konstitusional.

Demikian petisi ini dibuat secara singkat, agar menjadi perhatian penyelenggara negara di tengah meluas dan menguniversalnya nilai-nilai peradaban kemanusiaan saat ini.

Surabaya, 10 Desember 2008

CIVITAS AKADEMIKA FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA

Leave a comment

Filed under HAM

Perlindungan bagi pembela HAM: Revisited

Tanggal 7 September 2008 yang lalu, kita baru saja memperingati 4 tahun kepergian Munir Said Thalib, seorang pejuang pembela HAM yang menjadi korban dari konspirasi intelejen tingkat tinggi. Meskipun babak baru persidangannya sudah dimulai dan semakin mendekati terungkapnya pelaku utama dalam kasus ini, kejadian yang sebenarnya dalam kematian Munir nampaknya masih akan sulit untuk diungkap.

Peringatan kepergian Cak Munir diatas mengingatkan kembali kepada kita tentang pentingnya keberadaan instrumen hukum nasional yang mampu memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi pembela HAM atau yang juga disebut sebagai human rights defender. Oleh karena itu Penulis merasa perlu untuk melihat kembali (revisiting) isu ini. Gagasan tentang perlindungan ini sebenarnya bukanlah hal yang baru, pro dan kontra tentang perlu atau tidaknya juga sudah banyak diperdebatkan. Lalu mengapa pembela HAM menjadi khusus dan perlu mendapatkan perlindungan khusus? Sedangkan untuk melakukan pembelaan-pembelaan hukum kasus HAM misalnya, seorang advokat telah mendapatkan perlindungan profesi yang cukup sebagaimana diatur dalam Undang-undang No. 18 Tahun 2003 tentang Advokat.

Untuk menjawab pertanyaan diatas, kita terlebih dahulu perlu untuk meninjau definisi yang sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan ”pembela HAM” dalam Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Di dalam deklarasi ini disebutkan bahwa: “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”.

Kata “everyone” diatas menegaskan bahwa tidak ada batasan profesi, posisi ataupun status seseorang dalam memiliki hak untuk melakukan pembelaan HAM. Sehingga jelas setiap orang yang melakukan kegiatan pemajuan dan penegakan HAM merupakan “pembela HAM” tanpa memandang jenis pekerjaannya, apakah dia seorang advokat, aktivis HAM ataupun bukan.

Lebih lanjut lagi, sama dengan sifat dari HAM yang fundamental maka aktivitas pembelaan HAM menjadi bersifat fundamental pula. Artinya, tanpa adanya instrumen hukum yang mampu memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi aktivitas pembelaan HAM, maka pemajuan dan penegakan HAM nyaris hanya akan menjadi angan-angan belaka. Hal ini karena pada kenyataannnya meskipun pasal 28I ayat (4) Undang Undang Dasar 1945 dengan tegas menyatakan bahwa perlindungan, pemajuan penegakan, dan pemenuhan HAM adalah tanggungjawab negara, namun dalam banyak kasus – negara sebagai pihak yang paling bertanggungjawab terhadap pemenuhan HAM telah gagal melaksanakan kewajibannya.

Berlarut-larutnya penyelesaian hukum terhadap korban lumpur panas Porong- Sidoarjo, bebasnya pelaku penembakan petani Alas Tlogo dari tanggungjawab atas pelanggaran HAM dan terjadinya pangabaian hak-hak hukum terhadap tersangka oleh Kepolisian Jombang hanyalah contoh sederhana dari kegagalan-kegagalan negara tersebut. Dengan demikian, diperlukan adanya pembela-pembela HAM untuk mengawasi, mendorong dan memastikan pelaksanaan kewajiban negara ini. Oleh karena dilatarbelakangi oleh kegagalan negara dalam menjamin perlindungan, pemajuan penegakan, dan pemenuhan HAM itulah maka perlindungan khusus bagi pembela HAM menjadi sangat mendesak dan penting.

Alasan lain pentingnya perlindungan bagi pembela HAM adalah fakta bahwa negara tidak saja telah gagal dalam memenuhi kewajibannya memberikan perlindungan, pemajuan dan pemenuhan HAM sebagaimana dijelaskan diatas, namun lebih dari itu negara juga telah tidak mampu dan tidak selalu mampu melakukan pengawasan yang efektif sehingga orang-perorangan maupun organ-organ pelaksana tugas negara dapat secara sadar ataupun tidak melakukan perbuatan melanggar HAM dengan alasan kepentingan negara ataupun alasan pribadi.

Berlindung dibawah kekuasaan negara orang-orang ataupun organ-organ ini telah secara melawan hukum menggunakan kekuatan dan kewenangannya dalam mengancam, mengintimidasi bahkan sampai menggunakan kekerasan yang menimbulkan kematian terhadap para pembela HAM. Pembunuhan Cak Munir yang menyeret orang BIN ke persidangan, penembakan petani Alas Tlogo oleh tentara Marinir dan pemberhentian pemberian fasilitas kehidupan dasar oleh PT Lapindo Brantas kepada pengungsi di pasar porong adalah sedikit dari contoh tindak kekerasan fisik dan non fisik terhadap pembela-pembela HAM.

Bila saat ini di Indonesia para advokat, dokter, perawat, akuntan, insinyur dan banyak profesi penting lainnya telah dilindungi oleh instrumen hukum agar terhindar dari ancaman dan gangguan dalam menjalankan tugasnya – lalu mengapa pembela HAM yang menjalankan tugas mulia memperjuangkan perlindungan, pemajuan penegakan, dan pemenuhan HAM yang beresiko menghadapi ancaman-ancaman kekerasan fisik dan non-fisik tidak mendapatkan perlindungan hukum yang layak?

Terdapat beberapa alternatif untuk mewujudkan gagasan perlindungan hukum bagi pembela HAM ini. Beberapa pihak merasa perlu untuk dibuatkan instrumen hukum khusus yang mengatur masalah ini, sehingga dapat menjadi aturan khusus (lex speciali) yang menguatkan pengakuan terhadap kedudukan pembela HAM di Indonesia. Beberapa pihak lainnya merasa tidak perlu dibuat aturan khusus dan merasa telah cukup bila menambahkan aturan perlindungan terhadap pembela HAM kedalam amandemen terhadap Undang-undang No. 39 tahun 1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia.

Secara hukum masing-masing pendapat diatas dapat menimbulkan akibat hukum yang berbeda tentunya. Namun menurut hemat Penulis perdebatan tentang instrumen hukum nasional yang tepat bagi pembela HAM tidaklah begitu penting. Hal yang lebih penting dalam gagasan ini sebenarnya adalah ada atau tidaknya political will dari pemerintah dan DPR. Bila saja negara mau mengakui kelemahannya dalam memenuhi kewajiban konstitusionalnya untuk memberikan perlindungan, pemajuan penegakan, dan pemenuhan HAM – gagasan mewujudkan perlindungan terhadap pembela HAM akan menjadi lebih mudah.

Leave a comment

Filed under HAM