Reform needed for legal supremacy<\/p>\n
The public has so little trust in the country's legal system
\nbecause law enforcement has been marred by corruption, violence
\nand government intervention. Lawyer Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara
\nsays one way to resolve this situation is to ensure the current
\nprocess of amending the 1945 Constitution is free from political
\nmeddling.<\/p>\n
Question: How can we promote the supremacy of law so the
\npeople feel their interests are protected by the state?<\/p>\n
Answer: The main answer to that question is that our political
\nleaders, whether they are in the government or not, must keep the
\ncountry's legal system and law enforcement institutions
\nautonomous and free from intervention aimed at meeting short-term
\npolitical interests.<\/p>\n
Law enforcement must guarantee equality among citizens and
\navoid discrimination, privileges and abuses of power. Our law
\nenforcers, including the police, the Attorney General's Office
\nand the courts, must be made independent with a strong commitment
\nto upholding the supremacy of law. The current legal abuses by
\nboth the authorities and political parties have created pessimism
\namong the people and encouraged large-scale violence.<\/p>\n
Q: Where should law enforcement start?<\/p>\n
A: Both the authorities and the political parties must first
\ndevelop (public) optimism by reaching a consensus for upholding
\nthe law. The 1945 Constitution should then be amended to
\naccommodate democracy. To amend the Constitution, the People's
\nConsultative Assembly (MPR) must assign an independent state
\ncommittee, comprising not only politicians but also nonpartisan
\nconstitutional and human rights experts, to draft a new and
\ncomprehensive constitution.<\/p>\n
In preparing the draft of the proposed constitution, the
\ncommittee should invite public participation.<\/p>\n
Q: But the 1945 Constitution is currently being amended by the
\nMPR...<\/p>\n
A: The current amendment process is unfair because the amended
\ndraft is being prepared by an ad hoc committee from the MPR,
\nwhose members are debating for the short-term political interests
\nof their own parties, while the results of the amendments are to
\nbe used as the legal basis for other laws and regulations.<\/p>\n
Q: Then how should we reform our law enforcement institutions?<\/p>\n
A: We must make the institutions independent. For the Supreme
\nCourt, two steps must be taken. First, a short-term law should be
\nintroduced to allow for the early retirement of the current
\nsupreme justices and the recruitment of new credible supreme
\njustices, and to facilitate the establishment of a judicial
\ncommittee assigned to supervise the supreme justices.<\/p>\n
Second, a new comprehensive law should be introduced to
\nformulate, among other things, the tasks of the Supreme Court and
\nto describe the tasks of the justices.<\/p>\n
For the police and the Attorney General's Office, the relevant
\nlaws must be revised to stipulate that although their top
\nofficials are responsible to the president, their appointments
\nmust be approved by the House of Representatives (DPR).<\/p>\n
Q: Why don't you propose the top officials from the police and
\nthe Attorney General's Office be replaced?<\/p>\n
A: Their replacement is not as urgent as the replacement of the
\ncurrent supreme justices. Because legal cases will eventually
\nhave to go to the Supreme Court, the replacement of corrupt
\nsupreme justices is expected to have a positive impact on law
\nenforcement. Improvements in the performance of the police and
\nthe Attorney General's Office can be obtained through the
\nestablishment of honorary councils to supervise (these
\ninstitutions).<\/p>\n
Q: And why don't you propose the replacement of corrupt court
\nclerks, where the corruption in the courts usually starts?<\/p>\n
A: The key factor for the clean operation of the courts is the
\ncredibility of their chiefs, who can fire any of their corrupt
\nstaff members. Furthermore, we cannot start the improvements with
\nthe low-ranking personnel who are not the decisionmakers.<\/p>\n
Q: Do you think the establishment of new institutions like the
\nNational Ombudsman Committee will help improve law enforcement?<\/p>\n
A: I don't think so because their leaders have no clear vision
\nand they do not have adequate authority. They will be useful if
\ntheir operations are supported by laws and led by hard workers.<\/p>\n
Q: Do you see any hurdles to the implementation of your
\nproposals?<\/p>\n
A: The main problem is the fact that our politicians have
\nforgotten reform and are busy vying for new political positions
\nand economic resources. The country will thus be unable to
\novercome violence, because the leaders have not shown they're
\ntrying to consolidate to solve conflicts.<\/p>\n
Q: Do you see any prospects for legal supremacy?<\/p>\n
A: If the political elite cannot settle their own conflicts,
\ndon't be surprised if the people lose patience and people-power
\nmovements occur sporadically, thereby delegitimizing the role of
\nthe political elite. The crisis, therefore, may last longer and
\nthe country may experience chaos. (Rikza Abdullah)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reform-needed-for-legal-supremacy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}