New Trade Bill to be Reviewed

 
Fitri Novia Heriani, Yanuar Pribadhie
 
The newly passed Bill on Trade continues to attract criticism from various commentators and stakeholders. After traders, now it is non-government organizations that are criticizing the Bill. This group is planning to file a judicial review petition based on the contention that the Bill is too liberal and does not favor national interests.
 
One of the parties considering filing a judicial review petition is the group known as Indonesian Global Justice (IGJ). Rachmi Hartanti, IGJ’s Monitoring and Research Manager, is of the view that the Bill largely maintains the colonial era values of its predecessor.
 
“Some parts of the Bill are merely adopting the World Trade Organization [WTO] agreement when it is a common understanding that the WTO provisions are a form of neo-colonialism. This concept encourages trade liberalization and eliminates national sovereignty,” said Rachmi last Friday.
 
The IGJ believes that the Bill potentially violates the Constitution on at least six grounds.
 
First, the Bill supports unfair treatment of minor businesses such as farmers, fisherman, and micro, small, and mid-sized enterprises (UMKM).
 
Such unfair treatment can be found in Articles 2 c, 14 (1), 20 (1), 57 (1) (2), and Article 113 of the Bill, which potentially violate Article 28 H (2) of the Constitution. Furthermore, Rachmi asserts that Articles 57 (1) and (2), which require the use of the Indonesian National Standardization system, will bring harm to minor businesses that will have difficulties in meeting the prescribed standards.
 
Second, it is contended that the Bill creates legal uncertainty for society’s economically vulnerable due to the waiver of State responsibility for protecting the basic rights of those in society that will be most affected by the establishment of free trade.
 
According to the IGJ, this problem is created by the operation of Articles 13 (2) a, 14 (3), 25 (3), 26 (3), 35 (2), 50 (2), 54 (1) (3), 57 (2) (4), 66, 83, 84 (1) (7), 85 (2), and 113. These articles potentially violate Articles 28 D (1) and 28 I (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
 
“Harmful implementation of free trade is encouraged by the enactment of the Bill. Even the national interest provisions are weak and do not have strong legally binding power,” said Rachmi.
 
Third, the Bill does not require the Government to be involved in protecting the interests of farmers, fisherman, and UMKM in making trade policy which will affect their life and welfare. This will disenfranchise the rights of these parties and their ability to fight for their interests. This suggests that Articles 60 (3), 70 (1), and 97 (3) of the Bill violate the Constitution.
 
Fourth, the Bill has eliminated the rights of certain groups in society to survive through their usual livelihood as opening market access will encourage a surge in imports. Accordingly, local products will be battered by imported products. This is reflected in Articles 26 (1) and 57 (4) of the Bill.
 
Fifth, The Bill takes away the rights of members of society to have employment and an appropriate living standard. This is implicit in Articles 26 (1) and 57 (4) (7) of the Bill.
 
Raja Sapta Oktohari, the General Chairman of Indonesian Young Entrepreneur Association (HIPMI), has also suggested the Government give special protection and treatment to Indonesia’s young entrepreneurs. Raja hopes that the President will issue a regulation that supports minor domestic businesses, namely those which are run by young entrepreneurs.
 
“Young and beginners need special treatment so as they are able to grow. We suggested that the President issue a regulation addressing three main points, facilitation of licensing processes, financial services, and market access,” said Raja.
 
(hot/kc)