Changes hard to come by at the Supreme Court

Changes hard to come by 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.