Challenges in the AG's anticorruption strategy

Challenges in the AG's anticorruption strategy

Mas Achmad Santosa and Nenad Bago, Jakarta

The beginning of this month was marked by two remarkable
events reflecting the Attorney General's anticorruption efforts.

First, on Dec. 6, 2005, the Attorney General and the Head of
the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) signed a Joint
Decision of mutual cooperation.

On the occasion, the head of the KPK, Taufiequrachman Ruki,
stressed that the KPK would not be able to successfully combat
corruption by itself, but rather only in close cooperation with
the Attorney General. The Attorney General, Abdul Rahman Saleh,
agreed, stressing that both the Attorney General's Office and the
KPK represented the backbone of the efforts in combating
corruption.

The newly established cooperative agreement covers numerous
areas and the KPK has benefited by being able to use the Training
center of the Attorney General's Office as well as the detention
facility; on the other hand, the Attorney General's Office can
now use the sophisticated equipment of the KPK such as listening
devices and other hi-tech electronic equipment.

Second, on Dec. 7, 2005, the Attorney General unveiled a new,
clear set of indicators, which would be used by his office for
the evaluation of the performance of Chief Provincial
Prosecutors. These performance indicators truly represent a
revolutionary method for performance evaluation within the public
prosecution service, since they are simple, clear and easily
measurable.

This will allow the Attorney General to asses the performance
of Chief Provincial Prosecutors based on a transparent and
objective criteria, such as accomplishments on a number of
corruption cases prosecuted on the respective provincial level;
number of prosecutors that had to face strict sanctions due to
misconduct; number of public complaints that were successfully
handled (and thereby opening the status of the corruption case
handling to the public).

This method of evaluation will very likely increase the
accountability within the Attorney General's Office, as well as
the transparency of the promotions process -- ultimately
improving the overall performance of the public prosecution
service.

Based on a recent survey made by the Political and Economic
Risk Consultancy (PERC), Indonesia, apart from being the most
corrupt country in Asia, is also the country most affected by the
negative impact that the corruption has on the economy and
consequently on the overall performance of the country. These
circumstances will also unavoidably have a negative impact on the
economic, social and cultural rights -- such as lack of access to
employment and poor health services.

Regardless of the accuracy of this survey, it can be easily
foreseen that if the present level of corruption persists
unchallenged, Indonesia may be facing serious social and economic
crises in the not too distant future -- making the latest move by
the Attorney General and KPK important for the future of the
country.

Clearly, the Joint Decision on cooperation between the two key
institutions, as well as the establishment of the performance
indicators for the Chief Provincial Prosecutors, are timely and
are expected to have a large impact on the overall anticorruption
efforts and capacity for combating corruption within these two
institutions. Let us examine them briefly in turn.

The Joint Decision on cooperation can benefit both
institutions in numerous ways. For example, one can easily
imagine circumstances whereby, if the person prosecuted for
corruption is a member of the political elite, the political
pressure that would mount on the Attorney General (a member of
cabinet) could easily be removed by the action from the KPK
(whose members are not part of the Cabinet) based on its powers
defined by the Law No. 30/2002. Such action would have another
important aspect -- it would move away from the President
potential political difficulties, thereby keeping a concrete case
outside of any political influence.

Still, what makes these two items different from all other
anticorruption activities?

First, it eases the tension between the two institutions,
which are the backbone of the anticorruption efforts (and their
leaders) by establishing a detailed map of cooperation. This
cooperation is structured on two levels: operational and
psychological.

Second, the operational cooperation will help to amortize the
deficiencies in combating corruption inherent to both
institutions -- i.e. vulnerability to political pressure of the
public prosecution service and the lack of human resources by the
KPK.

Psychologically, they are sending a clear signal that from now
on, they are united on all fronts in fighting corruption and
corrupt people, both home and abroad, which will without doubt
send a chill down many spines -- and make potential criminals
think twice.

The second year of this Government, and the Attorney General
as a part of it, raises the question of what should the Attorney
General focus on to be able to successfully reform internally and
continuously combat corruption.

In this context, there are five main actions that the Attorney
General should perform:

First, implement as consistently as possible all elements of
the Presidential Instruction 5/2004, which orders, among other
things, to increase the number of cases handled.

Second, implement the already existing National Action Plan on
combating corruption -- preventive as well as repressive
measures.

Third, implement the Attorney General's Office Reform Agenda
launched on July 22, 2005 -- improving internal supervision and
developing a modern recruitment system; fourth, monitor and
evaluate performance indicators of Chief Provincial Prosecutors
-- the spearheads in combating corruption in the regions.

Fifth, build effective cooperation with the external
supervisory body of the public prosecution service -- the
independent prosecutorial commission established under
Presidential Decree No. 18/2005.

All of the above listed actions will need strong and
consistent leadership from the Attorney General, the Vice
Attorney General and all Deputy Attorneys General. Only a joint
effort and leadership by example will be able to increase the
performance and good governance within the public prosecution
service.

The writers are Advisors for Legal and Judicial Reform at the
Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia.