Change comes slowly at the Supreme Court

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, Jakarta

Almost 10 months after launching its reform blueprint, the Supreme Court (MA) is yet to undergo radical changes that would improve its credibility.

Administrative reform, one of six points stipulated in its blueprint, does not seem to have taken place within the institution, which is often dubbed "the last resort of justice".

The other five points cover issues related to its independence, functions and organization, human resources, budget and facilities, and transparency and accountability.

Recently, the Attorney General's Office complained that it was unable to execute its verdict against banker David Nusa Wijaya, who was sentenced to eight years in prison and fined Rp 1.297 trillion almost a year ago.

According to existing laws, prosecutors can execute the verdict of a court only after they receive a copy of it. David had fled the country even before the verdict was issued.

The court defended itself by saying that it could not locate David's files as court clerks and staff, including those handling the case, had moved to other divisions.

It has been suggested, however, that "court mafia" may have played a role in David's case. A report by the Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) revealed last year that court clerks are often allowed to observe trials and have the authority to set up hearings.

Asep Rahmat Fajar of the Judiciary Observers Society (MAPPI), which is involved in some reform projects in the court, said the Supreme Court is yet to introduce significant changes in its internal reform.

"I believe there has been no change in the court's performance -- both in administration and judicial affairs -- as only its leadership has implemented the blueprint," he said.

Romli Atmasasmita, the coordinator of the Monitoring Forum of Corruption Eradication, shared Asep's views, saying that the court was yet to implement its blueprint effectively.

"The blueprint was indeed initiated by the court leadership. Perhaps their subordinates are not aware of it. But, the leadership must do their best to force its implementation and make it part of the court's way of life," Romli said.

Iskandar Sonhadji, a lawyer and an anticorruption activist, said the blueprint was initiated by the Supreme Court leadership, rather than from within the institution itself.

"It's a top-down policy. The leadership must use an iron fist to force its implementation. Otherwise, it will be like window dressing -- for show only," he said.

The Supreme Court, like other legal institutions in the country, is known to rely heavily upon its leadership for the direction that it takes in day-to-day activities.

Chief Justice Bagir Manan is deemed an open-minded leader as he allows for the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the court's reform process.

He said earlier that making improvements was easier said than done. He expected his institution would be free from corruption within 15 years at the most.

The country's judicial reform began three years ago, when the House of Representatives revised a number of legislations on legal institutions.

In a bid to support its independence, the Supreme Court has recently secured authority over judicial, administrative and financial affairs from the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and the religious court from the Ministry of Religious Affairs. It is expected that the military court will also eventually come under the authority of the Supreme Court.

However, observers fear that the independence of the Supreme Court, without proper supervision, will only allow it to abuse its power.

"Therefore, the judicial commission must be established soon and the House must finish its deliberation -- otherwise, the country's judicial reform will go nowhere," Asep said.

Under existing regulations, the planned judicial commission has the authority to select Supreme Court justices, as well as to monitor its performance.