Law on Formation of Laws (UU No. 12/2011)
Here's a quote from West Wing:
"Law is like sausages. You don't wanna know how they're made."
Ever wonder? I can tell you that even lawyers don't necessarily know how law is made. Most of us probably breezed through that class back in law school with just enough to pass. Most of us are now probably apathetic and resigned to gloom over the idea that the illuminating minds at DPR are in charge of law-making. Or jaded because every day a new law comes out and we are left to sort out the mess of its implementation, or lack thereof. And even if we attended class diligently and passed with class honors, there are those tripes and intestines chopped up and hidden in the sausage which they didn't teach us in class; the stakeholders, the lobbying, the arbitrary determination of sociological value.
But at least there are a few things I think are slight improvements in the new Law compared to previous UU 10/2004:
1. Public participation
Previous law says "The people are entitled to provide written or verbal input on draft laws and regional regulations". Period.
New law expands that entitlement to all draft regulations (presumably everything from UU, PP, Perpres, PerMen, Perda, etc etc.) How? Through public hearings, work visitations, socialization, and seminars / discussions.
And to make this easy for us, every draft regulation must be "easily accessible to the people".
This is a basic civic right and it is about time this were clearly regulated. But the idea needs to be fluffed out and detailed in implementing regulations.
How wonderful life would be if every draft regulation that gets submitted to DPR/President is also simultaneously posted on the SekNeg/ Depkumham website, downloadable together with its Academic Brief, and the following notification:
"Public discussion on this draft will be held at [venue to be confirmed] 30 days from the date this draft is uploaded. Seats are limited. Please register your name/institution and a brief description of the relevance of the draft to your interests, to the following email address..."
*sigh*
2. Academic Brief
Academic Briefs (Naskah Akademis) are now required to be attached when submitting a draft Law to DPR/President, and the things it must generally contain are also now regulated. It ideally contains the academic research and "philosophical, sociological, judicial" considerations that went into the draft law so that reviewers can have a better idea as to what, why, and how. To be fair Academic Briefs have been around before, but inconsistently. Presumably because previous Law 10/2004 did not make it mandatory nor mention it.
One comment: "sociological" aspects are meant to include the kind of added value to society the draft law purports to impart. I personally think this should be framed as a cost-effective value: including cost-benefit analysis, methodological research into the economic cost of status quo and calculations of intended future economic benefit to society. How else would anyone plan for the success of a policy with only limited resources?
3. Formulation Team
The "pioneer" or the party that came up with the idea of having a new regulation has to form an inter-ministerial and/or non-governmental committee to prepare the draft. This departs from previous which requires only that the "minister or chief of non-departmental authority" prepare the draft. Hopefully this bodes well for a future of regulations that don't overlap, compete, or conflict with other ministries as they currently do.
Amen.
"Law is like sausages. You don't wanna know how they're made."
Ever wonder? I can tell you that even lawyers don't necessarily know how law is made. Most of us probably breezed through that class back in law school with just enough to pass. Most of us are now probably apathetic and resigned to gloom over the idea that the illuminating minds at DPR are in charge of law-making. Or jaded because every day a new law comes out and we are left to sort out the mess of its implementation, or lack thereof. And even if we attended class diligently and passed with class honors, there are those tripes and intestines chopped up and hidden in the sausage which they didn't teach us in class; the stakeholders, the lobbying, the arbitrary determination of sociological value.
But at least there are a few things I think are slight improvements in the new Law compared to previous UU 10/2004:
1. Public participation
Previous law says "The people are entitled to provide written or verbal input on draft laws and regional regulations". Period.
New law expands that entitlement to all draft regulations (presumably everything from UU, PP, Perpres, PerMen, Perda, etc etc.) How? Through public hearings, work visitations, socialization, and seminars / discussions.
And to make this easy for us, every draft regulation must be "easily accessible to the people".
This is a basic civic right and it is about time this were clearly regulated. But the idea needs to be fluffed out and detailed in implementing regulations.
How wonderful life would be if every draft regulation that gets submitted to DPR/President is also simultaneously posted on the SekNeg/ Depkumham website, downloadable together with its Academic Brief, and the following notification:
"Public discussion on this draft will be held at [venue to be confirmed] 30 days from the date this draft is uploaded. Seats are limited. Please register your name/institution and a brief description of the relevance of the draft to your interests, to the following email address..."
*sigh*
2. Academic Brief
Academic Briefs (Naskah Akademis) are now required to be attached when submitting a draft Law to DPR/President, and the things it must generally contain are also now regulated. It ideally contains the academic research and "philosophical, sociological, judicial" considerations that went into the draft law so that reviewers can have a better idea as to what, why, and how. To be fair Academic Briefs have been around before, but inconsistently. Presumably because previous Law 10/2004 did not make it mandatory nor mention it.
One comment: "sociological" aspects are meant to include the kind of added value to society the draft law purports to impart. I personally think this should be framed as a cost-effective value: including cost-benefit analysis, methodological research into the economic cost of status quo and calculations of intended future economic benefit to society. How else would anyone plan for the success of a policy with only limited resources?
3. Formulation Team
The "pioneer" or the party that came up with the idea of having a new regulation has to form an inter-ministerial and/or non-governmental committee to prepare the draft. This departs from previous which requires only that the "minister or chief of non-departmental authority" prepare the draft. Hopefully this bodes well for a future of regulations that don't overlap, compete, or conflict with other ministries as they currently do.
Amen.
0 comments: