Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:32:14.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom of Information Law and Its Application in Indonesia: A Preliminary Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2015

Simon Butt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2008, Indonesia introduced its first “freedom of information” statute – Law 14 of 2008 on Disclosure of Public Information (the “FOI Law” or the “Law”) – which became fully operational in 2010. The FOI Law is an important component of the government transparency and accountability mechanisms established after Soeharto and his authoritarian “New Order” government fell in 1998. This article assesses the extent to which the FOI Law has been effective in requiring public bodies to disclose “public” information that they would rather keep within their ranks. More time is needed for these reforms to take hold. However, this article, which provides the first academic analysis of the freedom of information reforms “in practice”, shows that Indonesia’s central Information Commission and the courts have, with two important exceptions, applied the FOI Law in favour of information-seekers, thereby providing some reason for optimism for the future of this reform.

Keywords

lawIndonesiafreedom of informationtransparency
Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 8 , 2013 , pp. 1 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008 Tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik (literally, Law 14 of 2008 on the Openness of Public Information). An English translation of this statute can be found online at: <http://www.right2info.org/resources/publications/Indonesia-Public-Information-Disclosure-Act-2008.doc/view> (last accessed 30 October 2013). Although this article refers to this statute as the “FOI Law” for convenience, I note that “openness” rather than “freedom” is used in the title of the statute. The word “freedom” was dropped from earlier drafts by the government when the law was finally enacted: Thornley, Andrew, “We Have a Right to Know. Is Our New Law Helping Us Find Out?” The Jakarta Post (26 December 2010)Google Scholar.

2 No 144/KMA/SK VIII/2007 on Disclosure of Information in Court.

3 McLeod, Ross, “Soeharto’s Indonesia: A Better Class of Corruption” (2000) 7(2) Agenda 99.Google Scholar

4 Lev, Daniel S., “Judicial Authority and the Struggle for an Indonesian Rechsstaat” (1978) 13 Law & Soc’y Rev. 37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thoolen, Hans, Indonesia and the Rule of Law: Twenty Years of “New Order” Government: A Study (London: F. Pinter, 1987)Google Scholar.

5 Hosen, Nadirsyah, Human rights, Politics and Corruption in Indonesia: A Critical Reflection on the Post Soeharto Era (Netherlands: Republic Of Letters, 2010).Google Scholar

6 Ackerman, John & Sandoval-Ballesteros, Irma, “The Global Explosion of Freedom of Information Laws” (2006) 58 Admin. L. Rev. 85.Google Scholar

7 Freedom Info, “FOI Laws: Counts Vary Depending On Definitions”, online: <http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/10/foi-laws-counts-vary-slightly-depending-on-definitions/> (last accessed 1 May 2012).

8 Right2Info, “Constitutional Provisions, Laws and Regulations”, online: <http://www.right2info.org/laws> (last accessed 1 May 2012).

9 Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, Anotasi Undang-undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik (Jakarta: Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law, 2009)Google Scholar.

10 Many of these NGOs were supported by various international donors: Brad Simpson, “Indonesia’s Freedom of Information Law” (2010), online: <www.freedom.org> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

11 Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, Anotasi Undang-undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik (Jakarta: Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law, 2009)Google Scholar.

12 Downloaded from the central Information Commission’s website: <http://www.komisiinformasi.go.id/> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

13 Available on the website of the Supreme Court of Indonesia: <http://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

14 Consideration (a).

15 Consideration (b).

16 General Elucidation.

17 The FOI Law also gives the right for “all persons” to “attend public meetings to obtain public information”: Arts. 4(2) and (3).

18 Articles 1(3) and 16.

19 Articles 1(3) and 15; clarified in Information Commission Regulation 1 of 2010 on Public Information Services Standards, Art. 3.

20 This requires public bodies to provide reasons for their policies, including political, economic, social, cultural, security and/or defence reasons: Arts. 7(4) and (5).

21 Articles 14–16.

22 This deadline was one year from enactment of the 2010 Regulation. In the interim, these tasks were permitted to be performed by an agency’s public relations or communications unit: Art. 21.

23 In accordance with Government Regulation 61 of 2010 on the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Law, Art. 14(1)(h).

24 However, the response time may be extended by a further seven working days, provided written reasons are given: Art. 22(8).

25 Even though the Regulation requires that these cases must be open to the public (Art. 8(2)), it is difficult to see how this could occur, for two main reasons. First, as mentioned, appeals are on the papers only, with formal objections submitted in writing. Therefore, there is no formal “hearing” or “proceeding”. Second, even if Art. 7 was interpreted to allow oral proceedings, it seems reasonable to presume that because of the sensitivity of some of the information sought, the court would often choose to hold proceedings in closed court, as is permissible under Art. 48 of the FOI Law.

26 Article 45A(2)(c) of Law 5 of 2004 Amending Law 5 of 1986 on the Administrative Courts states that the Supreme Court cannot hear appeals from decisions that have regional scope and are made by regional government officials. On this basis, it might be argued that while regional information commission decisions can be appealed to an administrative court, they cannot be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, it might be argued that because Art. 50 of the FOI Law (which purports to allow the Supreme Court to hear appeal of administrative court decisions) was enacted after Art. 45A(2)(c) of Law 5 of 2004, Art. 50 implicitly overrides Art. 45A(2)(c). This appears to be the interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Regulation 2 of 2011, Art. 9(2) of which specifies a right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

27 Excluded is information about criminal investigations; the protection of witnesses, victims and law enforcement officials; and intelligence data related to preventing or handling transnational crime: Arts. 17(a)(1)–(5).

28 Excluded information includes strategies, intelligence, operational details, tactics and techniques related to the defence and security of the nation; and the composition and disposition of force and capacity in defence and security.

29 Such as plans for buying or selling national foreign currency, shares, property and vital state assets; planned foreign investment; and investigations into banking, insurance or other financial institutions: Art. 17(e).

30 Such as the position, bargaining power and strategies which will be (or have been) used by states in international negotiations; correspondence, communication and code systems used in international relations; and the protection and security of Indonesia’s strategic infrastructure: Art. 17(f).

31 Including medical, financial or academic history; family details; and assessments of capability or competence: Art. 17(e).

32 Government Regulation 61 of 2010, Art. 3(1).

33 Ibid., Art. 4(2).

34 Ibid., Arts. 7 and 8(2).

35 This information is defined as information that impedes the investigation of a crime; divulges the identity of informants, witnesses and victims; reveals criminal intelligence data or plans to prevent or handle transnational crime; endangers the safety or lives of law enforcers or their families, and the security of law enforcement equipment and infrastructure: Elucidation to Art. 5(1) of Government Regulation 61 of 2010.

36 Government Regulation 61 of 2010, Art. 11(1).

37 Mendel, Toby, Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey, 2nd ed. (Paris: UNESCO, 2008) at 30.Google Scholar

38 Article 19, The public’s right to know: Principles on freedom of information legislation (1999), online: <http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/righttoknow.pdf> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

39 Saragih, Bagus B.T., “Red Tape Hinders Access to Information” The Jakarta Post (1 May 2010).Google Scholar

40 See the list at <http://www.komisiinformasi.go.id/> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

41 Saragih, Bagus B.T. & Tampubolon, Hans David, “Access to Info Improved Despite Poor Preparations” The Jakarta Post (1 May 2010).Google Scholar

42 “UU Keterbukaan Informasi Diabaikan”, Hukumonline (26 May 2012), online: <www.hukumonline.com> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

43 “Implementation of FOI Law Found Lacking in Indonesia”, Freedom Info, online: <http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/02/implementation-of-foi-law-found-lacking-in-indonesia/> (last accessed 21 February 2011); “Indonesia: International Focus”, UCL Constitution Unit, University College London, online: <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/countries/indonesia> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

44 Ibid.

45 Erdianto, Kristian et al., Implementasi Hak Atas Informasi Publik: Sebuah Kajian Dari Tiga Badan Publik Indonesia (Jakarta: Centre of Law and Democracy & Yayasan 28, 2012)Google Scholar, online: <http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Buku-UU-KIP.pdf> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

46 Center for Regional Studies and Information (Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional).

47 Basorie, Warief Djajanto, “Indonesia’s Freedom of Information Laws, One Year On”, The Jakarta Post (28 April 2011).Google Scholar One hundred and six requests were met and 166 were rejected.

48 Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan).

49 Kontras’ choice to target the police force was strategic. The police, along with other law enforcement institutions such as the public prosecution and the judiciary, have for many years been notorious for lacking transparency and accountability, and for “guarding their own” in the face of credible allegations of corruption or misconduct. Yet senior police officers were amongst the earliest and most vocal supporters of the FOI Law, and the police force was one of the first public bodies to issue internal FOI regulations: Saragih, Bagus B.T. & Tampubolon, Hans David, “Access to Info Improved Despite Poor Preparations” The Jakarta Post (1 May 2010)Google Scholar; see Regulation of the Indonesian Chief of Police16 of 2010 on Procedures for Public Information Services in the Indonesian National Police. According to one study, poor compliance with the FOI Law amongst police departments could be attributed to this Regulation not complying with the FOI Law, and failure to conduct training and education programs for staff: Prayitno, Dessy Eko et al., Assessment of the Right to Freedom of Information: An Assessment of Three Indonesian Public Authorities (Jakarta: Centre for Law and Democracy and Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law, 2012), at 12.Google Scholar

50 “Problems Found in Handling of RTI Requests in Indonesia”, freedominfo.org (4 May 2012), online: <www.freedom.org> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

51 Ibid.

52 Article 19, Fulfilling the Right to Information: Baseline Access to Information in East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia (2010), at 12.

53 Erdianto, Kristian et al., Implementasi Hak Atas Informasi Publik: Sebuah Kajian Dari Tiga Badan Publik Indonesia (Jakarta: Centre of Law and Democracy & Yayasan 28, 2012)Google Scholar, online: <http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Buku-UU-KIP.pdf> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

54 Prayitno, Dessy Eko et al., Interpretation of Exceptions to the Right to Information: Experiences in Indonesia and Elsewhere (Jakarta: Centre for Law and Democracy and Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law, 2012)Google Scholar; ibid.

55 Thornley, Andrew, “We Have a Right to Know. Is Our New Law Helping Us Find Out?” The Jakarta Post (26 December 2010).Google Scholar

56 Prayitno, Dessy Eko et al., Interpretation of Exceptions to the Right to Information: Experiences in Indonesia and Elsewhere (Jakarta: Centre for Law and Democracy and Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law, 2012)Google Scholar; Erdianto, Kristian et al., Implementasi Hak Atas Informasi Publik: Sebuah Kajian Dari Tiga Badan Publik Indonesia (Jakarta: Centre of Law and Democracy & Yayasan 28, 2012)Google Scholar, online: <http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Buku-UU-KIP.pdf> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

57 Ibid.

58 University College London, online: <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/countries/indonesia> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

59 Government Regulation 11 of 2011 on Public Servant Wages.

60 Article 6(3) then sets out types of information that public bodies must not disclose. These are categories also mentioned in Article 17: official secrets; and information that could endanger the state, individual rights, or that protects industry from unfair competition (Articles 6(3)).

61 “Perbedaan antara undang undang dengan peraturan perundang-undangan”, Hukumonline Klinik (5 November 2012), online: <www.hukumonline.com> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

62 Contained in Article 7(1) of Law 12 of 2011 on Law-Making.

63 Thornley, Andrew, “We Have a Right to Know. Is Our New Law Helping Us Find Out?” The Jakarta Post (26 December 2010).Google Scholar

64 Ibid.

65 In accordance with Government Regulation 61 of 2010, Article 21.

66 As Thornley puts it, “public information ought to be public regardless of what the intended use is”: Thornley, Andrew, “We Have a Right to Know. Is Our New Law Helping Us Find Out?” The Jakarta Post (26 December 2010).Google Scholar

67 Basorie, Warief Djajanto, “Indonesia’s Freedom of Information Laws, One Year On”, The Jakarta Post (28 April 2011).Google Scholar

68 Annual Report 2012, Central Information Commission of Republic of Indonesia, available at <www.komisiinformasi.go.id> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

69 The Commission received 76 complaints in 2010, 419 in 2011 and 323 in 2012. Two hundred and fifty-one of those lodged in 2012 were by NGOs, with 72 lodged by individuals: Ibid. Of the resolved cases, 162 were through mediation and 65 by adjudication. Two hundred and seventy-two requests were rejected, though the annual report does not specify the grounds for rejection.

70 Officials from the Information Commission indicated during interviews conducted in Jakarta in October 2012 that the website contains all of the Commission’s adjudications that were binding – that is, they were not appealed within the 14-day deadline mentioned earlier. At first glance, this figure of 40 cases might appear inconsistent with the annual report which, as mentioned, states that by the end of 2012, 65 cases had been adjudicated. However, it is possible that all 25 of these were on appeal at the time of writing, and therefore had not been posted on the Commission’s website. Indeed, during an interview, one Information Commissioner mentioned many cases that were on appeal.

71 Muhammad HS v. Social Affairs Ministry (Information Commission Decision 51/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Coordinating Ministry for People’s Welfare (Information Commission Decision 65/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Trade Ministry (Information Commission Decision 71/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Jakarta Regional Government (Information Commission Decision 63/II/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. National Transport Safety Committee (Information Commission Decision 61/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Culture and Tourism Ministry (Information Commission Decision 70/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Muhammad HS v. National Education Ministry (Information Commission Decision 025/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); National Fitra Secretariat v. Regional Autonomy Advisory Council (Information Commission Decision 112/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Sarvodya v. Ministry for Development of Underdeveloped Regions (Information Commission Decision 133/IV/KIP-M-A/2012); Sarvodya v. Drug Dependence Hospital (Information Commission Decision 001/I/KIP-M-A-2012); Muhammad HS v. Bank of Indonesia (Information Commission Decision 54/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Social Affairs Ministry (Information Commission Decision 51/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Coordinating Welfare Ministry (Information Commission Decision 65/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Gebrak v. Sumenep County Transportation Office (Information Commission Decision 003/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

72 Muhammad HS v. Jakarta Provincial Government (Information Commission Decision 63/II/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Bekasi People’s Regional Representative Council (Information Commission Decision 63/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

73 Sarvodya v. Energy and Mineral Resource Ministry (Information Commission Decision 183/V/KIP-PS-M-A/2012); Galaksi v. Banten Provincial Directorate General of Tax (Information Commission Decision 253/VII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Public Policy Monitor v. Pasar Minggu District Head (Information Commission Decision 161/V/KIP-PS-M-A/2012).

74 Such as train services operators in Indonesia Corruption Watch Medan Branch v. Indonesia’s State-owned Railway Company PT KAI Persero (Information Commission Decision 298/VII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); drinking water in People’s Coalition for the Right to Water v. Jakarta State-owned Water Company (Information Commission Decision 391/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); religious court building in Indonesia Corruption Watch v. National Police Headquarters (Information Commission Decision 002/X/KIP-PS-A/2010); Moh Sidiq v. Sumenep Religious Court (Information Commission Decision 358/IX/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

75 Agoes Soeseno v. East Java Regional Land Office (Information Commission Decision 374/XI/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Padang Self-Help Consumer Protection Community v. Padang Regional Land Office (Information Commission Decision 385/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2012); Heniy Astianto S.H. v. Yogyakarta Regional Land Office (Information Commission Decision 175/V/KIP-PS-A/2012).

76 Indonesia Corruption Watch v. Democrat Party Central Executive (Information Commission Decision 207/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2012); Indonesia Corruption Watch v. United Development Party Central Executive (Information Commission Decision 209/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2012); Seknas Fitra v. National Mandate Party Central Executive (Information Commission Decision 113/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

77 Busra Hasjim v. Kimia Farma Pension Fund (Information Commission Decision 335/IX/KIP-PS-A/2011).

78 Indonesia Corruption Watch v. National Police Headquarters (Information Commission Decision 002/X/KIP-PS-A/2010); Moh. Sidiq v. Sumenep Religious Court (Information Commission Decision 358/IX/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

79 Solidarity Action Committee for Munir v. State Intelligence Agency (Information Commission Decision 120/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

80 Gada Rahmatullah v. Trade Ministry (Information Commission Decision 150/V/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

81 Sarvodya v. Nutrition Directorate, Health Ministry (Information Commission Decision 124/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2012); Sarvodya v. Undeveloped Regions Ministry (Information Commission Decision 134/IV/KIP/PS-M-A/2012).

82 Sarvodya v. Anna Ceger High School (Information Commission Decision 017/I/KIP/PS-M-A/2012); LSM Sarvodya v. PGRI Junior High School 9 (Information Commission Decision 390/XII/KIP-M-A/2011).

83 North Sumatra Indonesia Bible Institute v. Sunggal Senior High School 1 and Sunggal Junior High School 1 (Information Commission Decision 015/VIII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

84 Milang Tauhida v. Jakarta Junior High School 1 (Information Commission Decision 202/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Herunarsono v. East Jakarta Regional Education Office (Information Commission Decision 001/II/KIP/PS-M-A/2011).

85 Herunarsono v. Jakarta Provincial Education Office (Information Commission Decision 201/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2012).

86 Ackerman, John & Sandoval-Ballesteros, Irma, “The Global Explosion of Freedom of Information Laws” (2006) 58 Admin. L. Rev. 85 Google Scholar, at 93.

87 Pursuant to Art. 49 of Information Commission Regulation 2 of 2010. For example, the Commission did this in Herunarsono v. East Jakarta Regional Education Office (Information Commission Decision 001/II/KIP/PS-M-A/2011).

88 See, e.g., Community Legal Aid Institute v. National Narcotics Board (Information Commission Decision 163/V/KIP-PS-A/2012).

89 E.g., the Information Commission did this in Gde Bhaskara v. Jakarta Workers and Transmigration Office (Information Commission Decision 254/VII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

90 See, e.g., Research and Application Discourse Institute v. PT Blora Patragas Hulu (Information Commission Decision 001/VII/KIP-PS-A/2010), in which the Commission noted that even though the information sought – a copy of a co-operation contract relating to natural resource exploitation – was not specifically mentioned as a type of information that must be disclosed, it could still be disclosed provided that the information was not excluded under Art. 17.

91 Ibid.; Antoni Fernando v. Public Works Ministry (Information Commission Decision 361/XI/KIP/PS-M-A/2011).

92 See, e.g., Seknas Fitra v. National Mandate Party Central Executive (Information Commission Decision 113/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011) in which the Commission upheld a request for copy of a financial report because, apart from not being excluded under Art. 17, it was required to be disclosed under Art. 15(d); Muhammad HS v. Jakarta Provincial Government (Information Commission Decision 63/II/KIP-PS-M-A/2010). See also Sarvodya v. PGRI Junior High School 9 (Information Commission Decision 390/XII/KIP-M-A/2011), in which the Commission considered National Education Minister Regulation 37 of 2010 on Government Support Fund Use in 2011.

93 Muhammad HS v. Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Ministry (Information Commission Decision 49/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011; Muhammad HS v. Bank of Indonesia (Information Commission Decision 54/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

94 Muhammad HS v. Culture and Tourism Ministry (Information Commission Decision 70/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

95 Solidarity Action Committee for Munir v. Indonesia’s State Intelligence Agency (Information Commission Decision 120/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Muhammad HS v. Law and Human Rights Ministry (Information Commission Decision 52/II/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

96 Sarvodya v. Electricity Directorate, Energy and Mineral Resource Ministry (Information Commission Decision 181/V/KIP-PS-M-A/2012).

97 Muhammad HS v. Coordinating Ministry of Welfare (Information Commission Decision 65/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Trade Ministry (Information Commission Decision 71/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

98 Such as in Arifin Nurdin v. Polewali Mandar Land Office (Information Commission Decision 174/V/KIP-PS-A/2012), where the Commission ordered the Polewali Mandar Land Office to provide the applicant with the requested land certificate, on the presumption that the Land Office should have held it.

99 Muhammad HS v. National Education Ministry (Information Commission Decision 025/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

100 Komid v. National Ombudsman (Information Commission Decision 011/I/KIP-PS-M-A/2012).

101 People’s Coalition for the Right to Water v. Jakarta State-owned Water Company (Information Commission Decision 391/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

102 Muhammad HS v. Jakarta Provincial Government (Information Commission Decision 63/II/KIP-PS-M-A/2010); Muhammad HS v. Social Affairs Ministry (Information Commission Decision 51/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010). The Commission has not, to my knowledge, considered resource implications for public bodies. If the applicant does not request documents, but rather seeks answers to specific questions, to what lengths must the public body go to provide the information? Will providing the documents containing the information be sufficient, or does the information officer need to distil the information from a document and provide a summary of that information? The Commission’s approach in one case has been to require that the respondent answer eight specific questions directly, rather than merely provide the documents containing the information: Milang Tauhida v. Jakarta Public Junior High School 1 (Information Commission Decision 202/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

103 North Sumatra Indonesia Bible Institute v. Sunggal Senior High School 1 and Sunggal Junior High School 1 (Information Commission Decision 015/VIII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010). In this case, the Commission found that schools could not use ignorance of their obligations as an excuse for failing to provide the requested information.

104 Sarvodya v. General Directorate for Minerals and Coal, Energy and Natural Resources Ministry (Information Commission Decision 178/V/KIP-PS-M-A/2012); see also Seknas Fitra v. Regional Autonomy Representative Council (Information Commission Decision 112/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

105 North Sumatra Indonesia Bible Institute v. Sunggal Senior High School 1 and Sunggal Junior High School 1 (Information Commission Decision 015/VIII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

106 See, e.g., Galaksi v. Banten Regional Tax Office (Information Commission Decision 253/VII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Agoes Soeseno, SH, MM v. East Java Regional Land Office (Information Commission Decision 374/XI/KIP-PS-M-A/2011); Seknas Fitra v. Regional Autonomy Representative Council (Information Commission Decision 112/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

107 Muhammad HS v. Bekasi Islamic Center (Information Commission Decision 146/V/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

108 Ibid.

109 Seknas Fitra v. State Intelligence Agency (Information Commission Decision 102/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

110 PT Triyasa Prisa Utama v. Indonesian Independent Surveyors’ Association (Information Commission Decision 089/IUII/KIP-PS-M-A/2012).

111 Busra Hasjim v. Kimia Farma Pension Fund (Information Commission Decision 335/IX/KIP-PS-A/2011).

112 Ministry of Finance Regulation 512 of 2002 on Direct Pension Fund Investigation.

113 Bandung Legal Aid Institute v. Ciamis Regional Government (Information Commission Decision 123/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

114 Muhammad HS v. National Transport Safety Committee (Information Commission Decision 61/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

115 Padang Self-Help Consumer Protection Community v. Padang Provincial Land Office (Information Commission Decision 385/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2012); Gito Purnomo v. Finance Ministry (Information Commission Decision 329/VI/KIP-PS-A/2011).

116 Agoes Soeseno v. East Java Regional Land Office (Information Commission Decision 374/XI/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

117 Busra Hasjim v. Kimia Farma Pension Fund (Information Commission Decision 335/IX/KIP-PS-A/2011).

118 Gito Purnomo v. Finance Ministry (Information Commission Decision 329/VI/KIP-PS-A/2011).

119 Muhammad HS v. Bekasi Forum for Religious Harmony (Information Commission Decision 45/I/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

120 Minister of Religious and Minister of Interior Joint Regulations 9 and 8 of 2006 on Regional Head and Vice Head Guideline in Maintaining Religious Harmony, Empowerment of Religious Harmony Forum, and Establishing Place of Worship.

121 LSM Sarvodaya v. Jakarta and Tangerang State-owned Electricity Companies (Information Commission Decision 156/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2012).

122 See, e.g., Seknas Fitra v. State Intelligence Agency (Information Commission Decision 102/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

123 Indonesia Corruption Watch Medan Branch v Indonesia’s State-owned Railway Company (Information Commission Decision 298/VII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

124 Ibid.

125 Indonesia Corruption Watch v. Indonesia Police Headquarters (Information Commission Decision 002/X/KIP-PS-A/2010).

126 Community Legal Aid Institute v. National Narcotics Board (Information Commission Decision 163/V/KIP-PS-A/2012).

127 Fitra v. State Intelligence Agency (Information Commission Decision 102/IV/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

128 Law 17 of 2011 on National Intelligence.

129 Research and Application Discourse Institute v. PT Blora Patragas Hulu (Information Commission Decision 001/VII/KIP-PS-A/2010).

130 Antoni Fernando v. Public Works Ministry (Information Commission Decision 361/XI/KIP/PS-M-A/2011).

131 Presidential Decree 80 of 2003 on Guidelines for Government Goods and Service Purchases (Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah), Art. 48(6).

132 People Coalition for the Right to Water v. Jakarta’s State-owned Water Company (Information Commission Decision 391/XII/KIP-PS-M-A/2011).

133 See, e.g., Herunarsono v. International Rawamangun Primary School 12 (Information Commission Decision Decision 002/II/KIP/PS-M-A/2011).

134 See, e.g., Gebrak v. Sumenep Regional Transportation Office (Information Commission Decision 003/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2010).

135 Bogor Regent v. Muhammad Hidayat (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 34/G/2012); PT Danu Berjaya Mas v. Garut Regent (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 17/G/2012); Jakarta Administrative Court Decision 26/G/2011; Muhammad Hidayat v. Head of Parks, Cemeteries and PJU (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 47/G/2012); Bandung Administrative Court Decision 48/G/2012; Bogor Mayor v. Muhammad Hidayat (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 64/G/2012); Surabaya Administrative Court Decision 75/G/2012; Jakarta Administrative Court Decision 102/G/2012.

136 Hidayat v. Education Ministry Information and Public Relations Head (Jakarta Administrative Court Decision 26/G/2011/PTUN-JKT).

137 Bangkalan Corruption Watch v. Bangkalan Parliament (Surabaya Administrative Court Decision 75/G/2012/PTUN-SBY).

138 Hidayat v. Head of Bekasi Department for Plantations, Graveyards and PJU (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 47/G/2012/PTUN-BDG).

139 Suciawati v. BIN (Jakarta Administrative Court Decision 17/G/2012/PTUN-Jkt).

140 For more on the murder of Munir and subsequent trials, including of Pollycarpus (a former BIN operative), see Lindsey & Parsons, “The One that Got Away” Inside Indonesia (October 2008), online: <http://www.insideindonesia.org/weekly-articles/the-one-that-got-away> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

141 Bogor Mayor v. Hidayat (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 34/G/TUN/2012 PTUN-BDG); Bogor Mayor v. Hidayat (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 64/G/TUN/2012 PTUN-BDG).

142 Depok Mayor v. Hidayat (Bandung Administrative Court Decision 48/G/TUN/2012/PTUN-BDG).

143 BPK Regulation 3 of 2011, Art. 11(a).

144 KPK Regulation KEP.07/IKPK/02/2005.

145 Public Works Ministry v. Antoni Fernando (Jakarta Administrative Court Decision 102/G/2012/PTUN-JKT).

146 See Art. 2(1) of Law 19 of 2002 on Copyright.

147 See Art. 3 of Law 30 of 2000 on Trade Secrets.

148 Mohamad Mova Al’Afghani, “Perjanjian Badan Publik Dengan Pihak Ketiga Anotasi Pasal 11 ayat (1) (e) Undang Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008” Opus Citatum (15 October 2012), online: <http://blog.alafghani.info/2012/10/perjanjian-badan-publik-dengan-pihak_3669.html> (last accessed 30 October 2013).

149 Antoni Fernando v. Public Works Ministry (Information Commission Decision 361/XI/KIP/PS-M-A/2011).

150 See, e.g., Herunarsono v. Jakarta Provincial Education Department (Information Commission Decision 201/VI/KIP-PS-M-A/2012).