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.