Deputy Head Of Commission XIII DPR: No Complicated Points In The LPSK Bill

DOK ANTARA

JAKARTA - Commission XIII of the DPR has begun to receive input on the Revision of the Law on the Second Amendment to Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning the Protection of Witnesses and Victims.

In this discussion, Deputy Chairman of Commission XIII of the House of Representatives, Sugiat Santoso, reminded that there should be no complicated points in the Revision of the Law (RUU) of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK).

This was conveyed by Sugiat in a hearing meeting of Commission XIII DPR with LPSK at the DPR building, Jakarta, Wednesday, September 17.

Sugiat hopes that the regulation included in the legal umbrella is rational and can be carried out properly.

"I think the technicalities that make it difficult for us should not trap us not to do that," said Sugiat.

This member of the DPR from the Gerindra Party faction also asked for an explanation of the results of the LPSK discussion with Commission III of the DPR regarding the Criminal Procedure Code Bill which is being discussed. Sugiat said he wanted to receive complete enlightenment regarding the connection between the LPSK Bill and the Criminal Procedure Code Bill.

"Because we want harmonization, because if the law is one with another law, the opposite will not connect later, I think later in that context we can position the preparation of the LPSK Bill," he said.

Previously, Commission XIII of the DPR had already held meetings with a number of law enforcement agencies such as the National Police, the Attorney General's Office, and the Supreme Court (MA) to ask for input related to the LPSK Bill. At the meeting, law enforcement agencies refused if LPSK was involved in pro justitia events.

In addition, Sugiat revealed, in the joint meeting with law enforcement, the AGO emphasized that the LPSK concert was only in restitution. Therefore, Sugiat did not agree if later the bill that was being discussed was only limited to regulating the role of LPSK in the recovery of witnesses or victims.

"I think that in the context of the law it is not like that, therefore please explain later if there is information related to the Criminal Procedure Code that we will confirm if it is related to LPSK, we will synchronize it there, so that it is not far away, that's the first one," he said.

Sugiat also agreed and was enthusiastic about LPSK to confirm the position of witnesses or victims who were included in the LPSK Law. According to him, there must be a regulation that clearly regulates the category of criminal acts that are included in the LPSK Bill.

He reminded that the regulation should not be contained in the LPSK Bill, which will be multi-interpretation.

"Is it only a certain crime or as wide as possible that all victims of the crime crime are included in the LPSK Law," he said.

"I think that is the technical problem, how can LPSK maximize its role in the context of witness and victim protection, while we both understand that this institution has limited human resources, has limited organizational resources, and budget," he continued.

On the other hand, Sugiat mentioned the points of recovery of victims of environmental and forestry crimes. He reminded that the recovery in this case did not cost a little.

"So don't let us draw up a law that we ourselves can't execute," he said.

Sugiat then questioned the rights that were expanded from witnesses and victims. For example, guaranteeing the rights of employees and the work of witnesses and victims. He reminded that this point can be reviewed so as not to overlap with the Employment Law.

Sugiat also requested that the proposals submitted to Commission XIII of the DPR do not violate other laws. "I think things like this should not make it difficult for us to ratify later, it is the LPSK that runs it, don't make it difficult for LPSK," he concluded.