Not too long ago, our Central Bank’s officials received legal aid worth Rp 92.25 billion. Meanwhile, the poor in the country are still struggling to achieve equality before the law. Today, the term of legal aid is beginning to lose its meaning, both in concept and implementation.
According to the investigation of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), for instance, a sum of Rp 96.25 billion (approx. US$8.6 million) has been channeled by the Indonesian Central Bank (BI) to provide legal aid to several of its former officials who were being prosecuted in relation to the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance (BLBI) case. While the case was still under investigation, Korpri (the Republic of Indonesia Civil Servants Corps), which has 4 million registered members, announced its intention to form its own Legal Aid and Consulting Agency (LKBH).
In a country like Indonesia where the legal aid system is not well-regulated by a comprehensive act, the impact of such term or notion deviations may lead to complex circumstances. Legal aid should be provided to the poor and the disadvantaged whose population perhaps is a dozen times bigger than state employees, let alone the central bank’s officials. Given the complex character of some legal issues, who has the responsibility of helping the disadvantaged people?
Access to Justice
Access to legal aid is the fundamental right of each individual. Based on the rights, each individual shall have appropriate access to justice, whether rich or poor. Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution stressed that all citizens without exception shall be equal before the law and in government, and shall have the duty to uphold the law and the government.
In general, legal aid can be understood as providing legal services to disadvantaged people—usually in the economic sense. It can also be understood as financial assistance available to people who are unable to meet the full cost of legal proceedings (Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition, 2006). Given that legal aid is considered as a basic human right, then legal aid has two implications: the right to legal representation and access to justice.
The right to legal representation means being represented or assisted by a lawyer during trial. Access to justice has wider dimensions, and means much more than improving an individual's access to courts or guaranteeing legal representation. It is about ensuring that legal and judicial outcomes are just and equitable (UNDP, 2004).
According to Adnan Buyung Nasution (2005), access to justice has three key elements: the right to use and/or extract benefits from the law as well as from the court system in order to achieve material justice and truth, the warrant and the availability of the rights’ (law) fulfillment system and infrastructure for disadvantaged people, as well as method or procedure to broaden access to justice for the poor.
Indonesia does not have a comprehensive regulation on the legal aid system. As a result, there is no comprehensive action in providing legal aid for the poor. The government only supports a small amount of them, both in practice and financing. What we have is, instead, a legal aid funding for government institutions, as was stipulated in the state budget (APBN).
According to the 2008 state budget, the Supreme Court received a total funding allocation for the enhancement of legal aid and services program in the amount of Rp 6.454 trillion (approx. US$576 million). Other institutions received similar funding, including the General Attorney Office (Rp 2 trillion), the General Elections Committee (Rp 793.9 billion), and the Department of Law and Human Rights (Rp 4.846 trillion).
However, in practice, most of the funding goes into internal purpose, i.e. for the respective bureau/department. Only a small amount goes towards public purposes, which are mostly used for campaigning program, publication, short-term consultation, and direct legal assistance to the poor who are deprived of justice.
The Rights of the Poor
There are two aspects that need to be highlighted if we wish to bring justice to the poor, in terms of legal aid.
First, the lawyer’s role and the commitment must be purified. Secondly, the government must take reasonable steps to appropriately regulate the legal aid system.
The first point stresses that lawyers should understand their position as those who have a respectable and noble profession. Article 22 paragraph (1) of Law No. 18/2003 regarding Advocates maintained that lawyers shall provide free legal aid to disadvantaged people.
According to the article, such obligation rests upon every lawyer due to the nobility of their profession. This means that every lawyer should work as hard as they can, both materially and immaterially, to provide legal aid to disadvantaged people.
The second point requires the state to formulate a law that ensures the right and access of poor people to legal aid. Such guarantee will provide greater certainty and clarity regarding the mechanism for funding and providing legal aid to disadvantaged people. This will prove that the government is actually concerned with legal justice and poor people.
In other countries, the responsibility for financing legal aid is assumed by the state (in the budget) and is allocated annually. Australia Legal Aid Commission (2003-2004) received a total funding of AU$ 337.757 million, The Taiwan Legal Aid Foundation (2003-2004) received NT$ 217.97 million, and a similar agency in South Africa (2006-2007) received US$ 77.7 million. Each year, the budgetary allocation for legal aid in such countries is always increased.
Not all issues related to legal aid provision can be solved by funding allocation. In the process, we need determination, seriousness, and the purity of each supporting element, so they could be well targeted and reach disadvantage people who are desperate for justice.
South Africa, for instance, established an independent committee/association to manage its legal aid fund, which distributes the fund to legal aid practitioners, engages in supervision, and reports the result to the parliament as part of its public responsibility.
Legal aid is strongly connected with societal justice as well as human rights. Consequently, the state has obligation to protect and fulfill them. If they fail to do so, then it begs the question of: is it really true that the state guarantee human rights? vivanews.com
According to the investigation of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), for instance, a sum of Rp 96.25 billion (approx. US$8.6 million) has been channeled by the Indonesian Central Bank (BI) to provide legal aid to several of its former officials who were being prosecuted in relation to the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance (BLBI) case. While the case was still under investigation, Korpri (the Republic of Indonesia Civil Servants Corps), which has 4 million registered members, announced its intention to form its own Legal Aid and Consulting Agency (LKBH).
In a country like Indonesia where the legal aid system is not well-regulated by a comprehensive act, the impact of such term or notion deviations may lead to complex circumstances. Legal aid should be provided to the poor and the disadvantaged whose population perhaps is a dozen times bigger than state employees, let alone the central bank’s officials. Given the complex character of some legal issues, who has the responsibility of helping the disadvantaged people?
Access to Justice
Access to legal aid is the fundamental right of each individual. Based on the rights, each individual shall have appropriate access to justice, whether rich or poor. Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution stressed that all citizens without exception shall be equal before the law and in government, and shall have the duty to uphold the law and the government.
In general, legal aid can be understood as providing legal services to disadvantaged people—usually in the economic sense. It can also be understood as financial assistance available to people who are unable to meet the full cost of legal proceedings (Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition, 2006). Given that legal aid is considered as a basic human right, then legal aid has two implications: the right to legal representation and access to justice.
The right to legal representation means being represented or assisted by a lawyer during trial. Access to justice has wider dimensions, and means much more than improving an individual's access to courts or guaranteeing legal representation. It is about ensuring that legal and judicial outcomes are just and equitable (UNDP, 2004).
According to Adnan Buyung Nasution (2005), access to justice has three key elements: the right to use and/or extract benefits from the law as well as from the court system in order to achieve material justice and truth, the warrant and the availability of the rights’ (law) fulfillment system and infrastructure for disadvantaged people, as well as method or procedure to broaden access to justice for the poor.
Indonesia does not have a comprehensive regulation on the legal aid system. As a result, there is no comprehensive action in providing legal aid for the poor. The government only supports a small amount of them, both in practice and financing. What we have is, instead, a legal aid funding for government institutions, as was stipulated in the state budget (APBN).
According to the 2008 state budget, the Supreme Court received a total funding allocation for the enhancement of legal aid and services program in the amount of Rp 6.454 trillion (approx. US$576 million). Other institutions received similar funding, including the General Attorney Office (Rp 2 trillion), the General Elections Committee (Rp 793.9 billion), and the Department of Law and Human Rights (Rp 4.846 trillion).
However, in practice, most of the funding goes into internal purpose, i.e. for the respective bureau/department. Only a small amount goes towards public purposes, which are mostly used for campaigning program, publication, short-term consultation, and direct legal assistance to the poor who are deprived of justice.
The Rights of the Poor
There are two aspects that need to be highlighted if we wish to bring justice to the poor, in terms of legal aid.
First, the lawyer’s role and the commitment must be purified. Secondly, the government must take reasonable steps to appropriately regulate the legal aid system.
The first point stresses that lawyers should understand their position as those who have a respectable and noble profession. Article 22 paragraph (1) of Law No. 18/2003 regarding Advocates maintained that lawyers shall provide free legal aid to disadvantaged people.
According to the article, such obligation rests upon every lawyer due to the nobility of their profession. This means that every lawyer should work as hard as they can, both materially and immaterially, to provide legal aid to disadvantaged people.
The second point requires the state to formulate a law that ensures the right and access of poor people to legal aid. Such guarantee will provide greater certainty and clarity regarding the mechanism for funding and providing legal aid to disadvantaged people. This will prove that the government is actually concerned with legal justice and poor people.
In other countries, the responsibility for financing legal aid is assumed by the state (in the budget) and is allocated annually. Australia Legal Aid Commission (2003-2004) received a total funding of AU$ 337.757 million, The Taiwan Legal Aid Foundation (2003-2004) received NT$ 217.97 million, and a similar agency in South Africa (2006-2007) received US$ 77.7 million. Each year, the budgetary allocation for legal aid in such countries is always increased.
Not all issues related to legal aid provision can be solved by funding allocation. In the process, we need determination, seriousness, and the purity of each supporting element, so they could be well targeted and reach disadvantage people who are desperate for justice.
South Africa, for instance, established an independent committee/association to manage its legal aid fund, which distributes the fund to legal aid practitioners, engages in supervision, and reports the result to the parliament as part of its public responsibility.
Legal aid is strongly connected with societal justice as well as human rights. Consequently, the state has obligation to protect and fulfill them. If they fail to do so, then it begs the question of: is it really true that the state guarantee human rights? vivanews.com
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar