TEMPO.CO, Jakarta – Substantive discussion of the Potential Ideology Directive Law Plan or HIP bill in the DPR continues to be pursued PDIP (Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle) despite the controversy.
PDIP Chairman Ahmad Basarah believes that a law is needed that functions as a legal umbrella governing the Pancasila Ideology Development Board aka BPIP.
Then PDIP wants the name of the HIP Bill to be returned according to the initial nomenclature, namely the Pancasila Ideology Development Bill (RUU-PIP) following the rejection of a number of people against the HIP Bill.
“The content of the legal content (PIP Bill) regulates the duties, functions, authority and institutional structure of BPIP,” Basarah said in a written statement on Saturday, June 27, 2020.
According to Basarah, the PIP bill does not contain articles that interpret philosophy please Pancasila to be the norm of law.
Member of the DPR Legislative Body from the Prosperous Justice Party Faction, Bukhori Yusuf, rejected the PDIP opinion that the HIP Bill was originally named the PIP Bill.
“I am a member of Panja (RUU HIP). The first draft that was discussed at Panja is as far as I remember (named RUU) Pancasila Ideology,” he said today, Sunday, June 28, 2020.
In the record of the National Legislative Program (Prolegnas) 2020 set for January 2020, there is a PIP Bill. Referring to the history of this bill’s discussion meeting, the Public Opinion Meeting with the inaugural Legislature on February 11, 2020, named the Bill on PIP.
Now, when it was passed as a proposal of the DPR’s initiative in May 2020, the name was changed to the HIP Bill.
On June 16, President Joko Widodo summoned Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Mahfud Md along with Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yasonna Laoly to the Merdeka Palace. Jokowi decided not to send a Presidential Letter to Parliament to discuss the HIP Bill.
“Regarding the HIP Bill, the government postponed discussing it and asked the DPR as a proposer to engage in more dialogue and absorb aspirations with all elements of society,” Mahfud said.
The next government’s reason is that the government is still focusing on tackling the Covid-19 outbreak.
The rejection of the HIP Draft bill before that came from the Indonesian Ulema Council, PP Muhammadiyah, and PBNU.
On June 24, 2020, eight days after President Jokowi “refused” to discuss the HIP Bill, then the PA 212 group rallied against the HIP Bill in front of the Parliament Building.
The demonstration became a concern after a procession burned the PDIP flag and “PKI flag.”
Deputy Speaker of the DPR Azis Syamsudin said that in anticipation of the escalation of protests, the DPR should indeed stop the discussion of the HIP Bill.
This Golkar Party politician explained that there were two mechanisms to stop the discussion of a bill. First, withdraw the discussion request letter sent by the DPR to the government. Second, let the letter expire.
If the first choice is taken, said Azis, the mechanism is through the Consultative Body and the DPR Plenary Meeting. This will only be discussed next week.
“If statement the government wants to postpone it. As long as the government does not send a presidential letter (the president’s letter), it cannot be discussed, “he said.
PDIP’s plan to continue the discussion by changing a bit of substance and changing the title to the PIP Bill does not seem to be as easy as turning the palm of the hand.
The parties which originally approved the HIP bill chose silence. On the other hand, the party that refused from the beginning, namely the Democratic Party and PKS, spoke louder.
According to Bukhori Yusuf, the proposal to return the nomenclature of the HIP Bill to the PIP Bill is irrelevant.
“If proposing another bill is another nomenclature.”
Members of the National Mandate Party Faction Saleh Daulay shared the same opinion. PAN, one of the parties said to have signed the HIP Bill.
Saleh proposed that the discussion of all bills related to Pancasila be stopped. He believes that changing the name of the bill will not stop polemics, debates and controversies.
“If it is continued by changing the title, it will certainly not solve the problem,” Saleh said.
Basarah forward undaunted. He seemed to remain persistent in pushing the HIP bill to become a PIP.
The Deputy Chair of the MPR said that the lack of substance in the bill was natural because of the many differences of opinion.
For this reason, Basarah stated that she was ready to listen and act upon criticisms, suggestions, and opinions from the wider community, including those from the Indonesian Ulema Council, PBNU, Muhammadiyah, and Retired Military / Police.
“For the sake of improvement and the presence of a bill that meets the principles of formal legality, the principle of legitimacy, as well as meeting the legal needs for fostering the ideology of the nation,” said Basarah.
– .
