{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1062145,
        "msgid": "collusion-on-the-supreme-court-1447893297",
        "date": "1996-04-18 00:00:00",
        "title": "Collusion on the Supreme Court",
        "author": null,
        "source": "JP",
        "tags": null,
        "topic": null,
        "summary": "Collusion on the Supreme Court Allegations of collusion on the Supreme Court (The Jakarta Post, April 15 and Kompas, April 15) threaten jurisprudentie- recht (Dutch for judge-made law). The Chief Justice has authorized the Special Supervision Coordinator within the Supreme Court to conduct an investigation.",
        "content": "<p>Collusion on the Supreme Court<\/p>\n<p>Allegations of collusion on the Supreme Court (The Jakarta<br>\nPost, April 15 and Kompas, April 15) threaten jurisprudentie-<br>\nrecht (Dutch for judge-made law).<\/p>\n<p>The Chief Justice has authorized the Special Supervision<br>\nCoordinator within the Supreme Court to conduct an investigation.<br>\nHowever, the Deputy Chief Justice who brought the case to the<br>\nattention of the Central Jakarta Prosecutor's Office has said<br>\nthat an internal investigation team within the Supreme Court<br>\nwould not be objective.<\/p>\n<p>Academics such as Satjipto Rahardjo of Diponegoro University<br>\nhave said that Deputy Chief Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto should<br>\nhave reported the case to the PO Box set up for complaints by the<br>\noffice of the vice president.<\/p>\n<p>Sri Sumantri, a constitutional law scholar at Padjadjaran<br>\nUniversity of Bandung, suggested that the People's Consultative<br>\nAssembly (MPR) set up a special commission to handle the<br>\ninvestigation. He also expressed the view that the internal<br>\ninvestigation team within the Supreme Court would not function<br>\nobjectively.<\/p>\n<p>Article 12 of Law No. 14\/1985 governing the Supreme Court,<br>\nlists five instances of misconduct which could result in the<br>\ndismissal of the justices. These include criminal acts and<br>\nviolating their oath of office.<\/p>\n<p>If Adi Andojo had reason and evidence for bringing the charges<br>\nto the Prosecutor's Office, then the issue falls within the ambit<br>\nof penal law. As correctly stated by Prof. Satjipto Rahardjo, the<br>\nremedy is legal (the Post, April 15, 1996). It is the<br>\nindividual's misconduct, and not the constitutional status of the<br>\nSupreme Court, that counts.<\/p>\n<p>Bringing the issue to the MPR could have a negative effect in<br>\nthat it could undermine the validity of Law No. 14\/1985 and leave<br>\nthe impression that the country's laws do not work.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of submitting the issue to the MPR may be sound<br>\ntheoretically, but whether it can actually be implemented is<br>\nanother problem.<\/p>\n<p>SAM SUHAEDI<\/p>\n<p>Jakarta<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/collusion-on-the-supreme-court-1447893297",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}