What is good conduct in the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n
Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto blew the whistle on collusion in
\nthe Supreme Court and is now waiting to hear his fate from the
\nPresident. Sociologist Ignas Kleden takes a close look at the
\nissue.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The semantics of politics is the politics of
\nsemantics. This is evidently not simply a language game played by
\nlinguists; in the case of Deputy Chief Justice for General Crimes
\nAdi Andojo Soetjipto the above proposition has come true.<\/p>\n
Perhaps to his dismay, Adi Andojo has become, in one month,
\none of the most discussed figures in the country. His attempt to
\nclean up the Supreme Court, has put him in a very controversial
\nsituation.<\/p>\n
Let us try to deal with some misgivings which could make
\npeople suspicious of his actions. First, is it possible to say
\nthat he is seeking popular glory and wants to be heralded as a
\nlegal hero? This does not ring true, because what Adi Andojo did
\nwas just to write a normal letter asking for the investigation of
\npossible collusion within the Supreme Court. The letter, however,
\nleaked out and Andojo has since just persisted to defend what he
\nwrote in it.<\/p>\n
Second, is it possible to accuse him of wanting to hurt or
\neven run for the position of Chief Justice by means of dethroning
\nhis own colleague? This also is irrational, since in nine months
\nhe is going to retire.<\/p>\n
Third, could we say that he just wants to undermine the
\nintegrity and authority of the Supreme Court as suggested by his
\nopponents? This is equally nonsensical since he cannot profit
\nfrom such a course of action. Besides that, he has a track record
\nof faithful and diligent service to the Indonesian legal system
\nover 38 years. So what is the reason for him to become a trouble-
\nmaker in an institution he has cherished for so long?<\/p>\n
Considering the many facts which Andojo has brought up so far,
\nthere are enough reasons to believe in his good intentions to
\nwant to rid the Supreme Court of the alleged collusion. The Chief
\nJustice responded to the allegation by commissioning an
\ninvestigation, the results of which, however, were never
\ndiscussed with Adi Andojo. Time and again lawyers stress the old
\nprinciple et alter pars audiatur (you should listen to both
\nsides). In this important case it, unfortunately, has not been
\nadhered to consistently.<\/p>\n
In the meantime Adi Andojo keeps talking to the public about
\nthe alleged collusion, which he is confident of being able to
\nprove. Why not give him a chance? He sticks to his opinion that
\ngiven there is collusion, and supposing the Supreme Court is
\nwilling to admit it, its integrity and authority will thereby be
\nelevated and not undermined. Or are we expected to believe in the
\ninfallibility of the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n
The latest reaction of the Chief Justice is the request to the
\nPresident to discharge Adi Andojo. This request reflects an
\ninteresting attitude, because a moral-legal action has been met
\nby a legal-bureaucratic one. Adi Andojo's motivation is evidently
\nto purify the respected office of alleged collusion, and to
\nincrease public accountability of the affairs within the Supreme
\nCourt. This however, is countered by recourse to bureaucratic
\nprocedure.<\/p>\n
Adi Andojo is said to be guilty of misconduct and therefore
\nshould be threatened with disciplinary action. But, alas, what is
\ngood conduct in the first place? Is collusion, if there is any,
\ngood conduct? Moreover, is the effort to cover up the case from
\nopen examination good conduct? Is it good conduct to never give
\nAdi Andojo a chance to prove his allegations? Is the policy to
\nkeep quiet in the face of public questions on what is going on
\ngood conduct?<\/p>\n
Adi Andojo has been ordered not to talk about the case. If we
\nkeep in mind the chronology, it was not his intention to
\npublicize the alleged collusion. His letter, without him knowing
\nit, was leaked. It is quite logical for him to stand up to
\naccount for what he has written. The fact that his letter is now
\nin the public domain is not his responsibility, but he is,
\nnevertheless, responsible for what he has written. Why should he
\nstop talking? Is it good conduct not to be responsible for what
\none has undertaken?<\/p>\n
Who has and who lacks good conduct? Who should face
\ndisciplinary action? Suddenly, we are faced with the politics of
\nmeaning and the politics of semantics. Is good conduct a
\nbureaucratic and administrative concept, or is it basically a
\nmoral one?<\/p>\n
Adi Andojo, whatever end is waiting for him in his struggle,
\nis, and will always remain, a lesson on the morality of this
\nnation. Sticking to his moral stance, he has never been trapped
\ninto the temptation of seeking popularity or public praise. He is
\ncorrect in refusing to talk about affairs other than his case. He
\nkeeps himself from unnecessary complications by not touching upon
\nother matters which he feels incompetent of talking about, while
\ncarrying on pursuing the case for which he feels responsible.<\/p>\n
We are lucky to have a man like Adi Andojo who demonstrates
\nclearly that not everything and everybody can be bureaucratized.
\nThere is something which is beyond the reach of
\nbureaucratization. The freedom of one's soul, is after all, a
\nbenchmark which signifies the moral struggle, civil courage and
\nspiritual achievement of our time and our country.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist now working with the SPES
\nFoundation Research Center, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/what-is-good-conduct-in-the-supreme-court-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}