Judicial system lacks strong leadership, proper oversight<\/p>\n
There is widespread public frustration over the contentious
\nverdicts recently handed down by the district courts and Supreme
\nCourt in trying several high-profile cases. Noted lawyer Todung
\nMulya Lubis spoke with The Jakarta Post's Ridwan Max Sijabat
\nabout the corrupt judiciary.<\/p>\n
Question: Why does the judiciary system still produce
\ncontroversial verdicts amid the ongoing reform?<\/p>\n
Answer: The reform in the judiciary system is not based on a
\nclear concept. The Supreme Court has several justices appointed
\nafter a thorough screening process. Meanwhile, high courts and
\ndistrict courts also have young, dedicated judges, but they
\ncannot develop well because they are not supported by a judiciary
\nsystem or working climate that are conducive to producing fair
\nverdicts.<\/p>\n
What is wrong with the court system?<\/p>\n
The development concept in the judiciary system has failed to
\naddress all the challenges, and so we see the public's
\nfrustration over the frequent miscarriages of justice.<\/p>\n
For instance, public frustration has emerged from the slow
\nprocess of the legal proceeding from the district court to the
\nSupreme Court due to the chronic shortages of judges and the
\nbacklogs of cases.<\/p>\n
The recruitment of more justices will not solve the problem
\nbecause the Supreme Court receives appeal cases from district
\ncourts, the religious court, the military court, the State
\nAdministrative Court, the anticorruption court, the trade court
\nand the labor court.<\/p>\n
The public frustration cannot be addressed under such a
\ncondition.<\/p>\n
A selection process is needed to filter out the kinds of cases
\nthat can be brought to the Supreme Court. Certain cases such as
\nseparation cases, debt cases and other minor ones should stop at
\nthe high court level to avoid backlogs of cases in the Supreme
\nCourt.<\/p>\n
Are there other factors that make people frustrated with the
\njudiciary system?<\/p>\n
The bureaucratic culture is still a key feature of the
\nIndonesian court system and this has contributed to the slow
\nprocessing of cases.<\/p>\n
If the Supreme Court is committed to creating a clean and fair
\njudiciary system, it should call all related parties and the
\nunscrupulous judges and clerks to investigate the reports (of
\nwrongdoing) and take actions against them in accordance with the
\nlaw. It has to adopt more transparency in developing the court
\nsystem and to regain the people's confidence.<\/p>\n
How do you evaluate Chief Justice Bagir Manan's performance<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court is also facing a leadership crisis. Being
\ngood and brave is not enough. Chief Justice Bagir Manan is a
\nlegal scholar and has a breadth of knowledge about law, but he
\ndoes not have strong leadership skills to run the whole judiciary
\nsystem.<\/p>\n
Under the current condition, the Supreme Court is in dire need
\nof a strong leader who is able to encourage the court to make
\nwise and fair decisions and closely supervise the court system.
\nIf needed, the chief justice has to conduct a sting operation to
\ncatch corrupt judges and court clerks as the Corruption
\nEradication Commission (KPK) did in arresting Mulyana Wira
\nKusumah to reveal the graft case and the alleged corruption in
\nthe General Election Commission (KPU).<\/p>\n
Bagir Manan will win public support if he is 'creative' in
\ntaking such measures, including unconventional steps, to
\neliminate, or at least to weaken, the court mafia and case
\nbrokers.<\/p>\n
Although the Supreme Court does not conduct investigations, it
\nshould coordinate with the police and the Attorney General's
\nOffice to closely supervise case investigations in the two
\ninstitutions.<\/p>\n
What is your comment on the poor payment of law enforcement
\npersonnel?<\/p>\n
The government should show its political commitment to
\ncreating a fair and clean judiciary system by improving the
\nsocial welfare of law enforcers.<\/p>\n
But a hike in their wages alone will not eliminate corruption.<\/p>\n
The high payment of lawyers and legal consultants cannot be
\nused as an excuse to justify corruption. Law enforcement
\npersonnel should have realized from the beginning of their
\nrecruitment that they would not be paid as much as lawyers.<\/p>\n
What does the government have to do now?<\/p>\n
The anticorruption movement the government has embarked upon
\nis a step toward significant progress, but it is not enough,
\nbecause it is still selective and discriminatory in bringing to
\ncourt those alleged to be corrupt.<\/p>\n
This half-hearted elimination of corruption has raised
\nskepticism among the people and a fundamental question on how far
\nthe government will go.<\/p>\n
Some people remain skeptical about the anticorruption movement
\nbecause it was launched only to fulfill his (Susilo Bambang
\nYudhoyono) pledge he made during his presidential campaign last
\nyear.<\/p>\n
The government should bring to court everyone who has
\nallegedly committed corruption regardless of their political or
\nsocial backgrounds if it is committed to eliminate the culture of
\ncorruption.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/judicial-system-lacks-strong-leadership-proper-oversight-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}