Information which is the basic capital of society to continue to develop and develop their environment as stated in article 28 f of the 1945 Constitution, has encouraged the community and government to initiate the birth of the Public Information Disclosure Act (KIP).
The main reason for the existence of the KIP Law apart from being a human right is the experience of the New Order era, where the information system was closed so that the flow of communication was one-way from top to bottom (top-down). And people don’t have the opportunity to provide feedback.
With the Law no. 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Disclosure, which was pushed after the Reformation, has provided a glimmer of hope for the community. Communities have legal guarantees to get access to public information which is their right. So that the community can provide good feedback in order to build the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.
In the KIP Law it is stated that, in order to guarantee the rights of citizens or the public to information, the State establishes a quasi-State institution which has the main function as a Dispute Resolution regarding citizens’ access to information that is not fulfilled. The Information Commission as an information dispute resolution institution has a strategic position, where the commissioner who functions as an assembly can determine whether information can be opened or closed.
However, this strategic position has not been taken advantage of by the Information Commission, where the institution which is supposed to be the guardian and guarantor of citizens’ rights to public information has become a distinct threat to citizens’ rights to information. Some of the things that have emerged include:
- Information Commissions in several regions and Regional Governments have misinterpreted the Ormas Law which stipulates a Certificate of Registration (SKT) from National and Political Unity (Kesbangpol) as a formal requirement for an application for an information dispute.
- The Regional Incumbent Information Commission encourages Implementation Guidelines (Juklak) and Technical Guidelines (Juknis) for KI selection which consider reappointment without going through a selection process.
- The National Coordination Meeting did not produce strategic agendas. And it is considered to be a waste of the State Budget and shows the low performance of the Information Commission.
On that basis, we, the Civil Society Coalition for Public Information Disclosure or FOINI (Freedom Of Information Network Indonesia), in commemoration of Right to Know Day, express our position:
First, demand that the Central Information Commission together with the Ministry of Home Affairs issue a Joint Decree to rectify the Provincial Information Commission and/or Regency/City Information Commission and the Regional Government which require a Certificate of Registration (SKT) as a formal requirement for submitting requests for information.
Second, demand that the Central Information Commission cancel or reject the proposal for the drafting of operational guidelines and technical guidelines for the selection of IC, which considers reappointment without selection for the incumbent Information Commission.
Third, demand that the Central Information Commission publish to the public all budgets that have been used by the Information Commission, especially the budget at the National Coordination Meeting which yielded nothing.
Fourth, demand that the Central Information Commission make a Circular Letter to the Regional Government stating that the APBD document, APBD Explanation, DPA, RKA, and financial reports are public information that must be disclosed. The Central Information Commission must also ensure the implementation of the Circular Letter in collaboration with the relevant Ministries to provide an integrated system of rewards and sanctions (punishment and reward) for public bodies that do not implement it.
Fifth, demand that the Central Information Commission carry out the mandate of the Strategic Plan for the Central Information Commission for the 2013-2017 period, such as for example the Prudential Information Commission, application of information disputes, active participation in drafting state policies, formulating and internalizing the typical corporate culture of the Information Commission and building a system of archival information dispute resolution archives that better.
Sixth, demand that the Central Information Commission focus on accelerating the formation of Provincial ICs (Maluku, North Maluku, Southeast Sulawesi and West Papua) and the formation of PPIDs, SOPs for information management and services, public information lists, encouraging the functioning of PPIDs in providing information services and publicly publishing information. pro-active, rather than trying to conduct a judicial review of Article 29 of the UU KIP.
Jakarta, 28 September 2014
FOINI (Freedom Of Information Network Indonesia)
YAPPIKA, PATTIRO, ICW, IPC, TII, Seknas FITRA, ICEL, IBC, MediaLink, Perludem, IBC, PSHK, SBMI, Koak Lampung,
PATTIRO Banten, PATTIRO Serang, Perkumpulan Inisiatif, PATTIRO Semarang, KRPK Blitar, Sloka Institute, SOMASI NTB,
Laskar Batang, PIAR NTT, KOPEL Makassar, SKPKC Papua, Mata Aceh, GerAk Aceh, JARI KalTeng, KH2Institute, PUSAKO Unand,
FITRA Riau, LPI PBJ, Institute Tifa Damai Maluku, dan Perkumpulan IDEA Yogyakarta.
Contact :
Ari Setiawan 0857 1188 3817
Ahmad Rofik 0813 9315 3564
Hendrik Rosdinar 0811 146 3983
Hanafie 0811 995 2737
Secretariat FOINI
Jl. Intan No. 81 Cilandak Barat, Jakarta Selatan 12430
Telp. 021 7591 5546
Email sekre.foini@gmail.com
