Interpreting laws on corruption<\/p>\n
With reference to the news article titled NGOs propose Supreme
\nCourt audit team (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 1, 2001) and another
\narticle titled NGOs blast two court rulings on bribery cases (the
\nPost, Aug. 27, 2001), allow me to make the following comment.<\/p>\n
The proposal by lawyers that the Supreme Court issue its
\nruling on differences in interpretation regarding the laws on
\ncorruption, Law No. 3\/1971 and Law No. 31, 1999, is not in place
\nas the Supreme Court issues rulings addressed to the state's
\nhigher institutions and the public who are need of those laws.
\nThe Supreme Court does not issue a ruling on a law in order that
\njudges comply with the ruling.<\/p>\n
It is true that Article 32 of Law No. 14\/1985 stipulates that
\nthe Supreme Court is authorized to supervise how the judicature
\nruns and how judges behave at all levels of the judicature but
\nthe Supreme Court does not have the right to intervene in the
\nexamination of and ruling on a case.<\/p>\n
A judge enjoys the freedom of making a ruling on a case and
\nthis is regulated in Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution. It is
\nthen up to the judge's commitment, professionalism and courage to
\nfind and delve into the legal values arising in our society in
\nconformity with Article 27 of Law No. 14\/1970, which has been
\nreplaced by Law No. 35\/1999 on the principles of judicial power.<\/p>\n
I agree that the eradication of corruption must be supported
\nby all layers of the community and that to avoid confusion about
\nthe law on corruption, the government and the House of
\nRepresentatives should immediately revise Law No. 31\/1999. In
\nthis context, it is not right to ask the Supreme Court to issue a
\nruling on the law on corruption.<\/p>\n
In making his ruling on a criminal case, a judge relies
\nheavily on the quality of the indictment that the prosecutor
\ndraws up. A judge must always bear in mind that his indictment
\nmust be drawn up carefully, accurately and professionally. It is
\nwrong to blame judges for frequently rejecting or canceling a
\nprosecutor's indictment without knowing why these judges have
\ndone so. At this juncture, allow me, also, to call on the
\nAttorney General's Office and the Supreme Court to establish
\ncoordination, integration and synchronization and introduce
\nsimplification in the drawing up of an indictment by a prosecutor
\nso that there will be no reason for a judge to reject or cancel
\nan indictment during a trial on various legal pretexts, as has
\nbeen the practice all these years. If the indictment is properly
\ndrawn up, a prosecutor will only have to prove the correctness of
\nhis indictment during a court session.<\/p>\n
BINSAR GULTOM<\/p>\n
Judge and Secretary<\/p>\n
Indonesian Association of Judges<\/p>\n
(IKAHI), Bogor District Court<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/interpreting-laws-on-corruption-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }