Chief Justice hails judicial commission

Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The country's judiciary, especially its judges, has long been criticized for its dependence on the executive body.

Its lack of independence is mainly because the judges' recruitment and administration are in the hands of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, with a little supervisory power by the Supreme Court.

In an attempt to establish an independent judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir Manan and noted lawyer Frans Hendra Winarta have said that the establishment of an independent judicial commission is essential to avoid government intervention in local courts.

The judicial commission, the establishment of which is required under the third amendment of the 1945 Constitution, will be an independent body authorized to name candidates for judges and justices, with the power to maintain and uphold the judges' dignity and integrity.

Bagir, in an interview with The Jakarta Post on Thursday, deplored the sluggish response of legislators to amend the Constitution.

"Should the government let the judiciary be completely put under the Supreme Court's roof, then such a commission is needed to supervise the judges and justices and to keep an eye on their track records," Bagir told the Post and Koran Tempo.

Bagir suggested that the judicial commission, which will be similar to a commission in the Netherlands, should be responsible to the public and have the power to appraise the judges as well as to manage their welfare.

Last week, Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra proposed to soon hand over the administration of the judiciary from his office to the Supreme Court in accordance with Law No. 35/1999 on the judiciary.

The 1999 law is the latest version of the 1964 and 1970 laws on the judiciary that, according to Frans Hendra, is a continuation of the state's dubious stance on the separation of power among the executive, the legislative and the judicial bodies.

"In Law No. 19/1964 on judicial authority, the government has the power to intervene in the courts.

"Although the article was removed from the 1970 revision, it still allows government intervention by putting the monitoring of the judiciary in the hands of the Supreme Court and the ministry of justice," Frans Hendra told the Post on Friday.

Although the new policy may ensure the independence of the court and the judges, many people fear that this move will strengthen the impunity of corrupt judges.

Unrelenting criticism has met controversial rulings by judges, who have been accused of collusion and of insulting people's sense of justice. The courts have also foiled prosecution against judges who have been accused of accepting bribes.

Frans Hendra acknowledged that government intervention in the past had also had a good impact, albeit tiny, especially in controlling corrupt judges.

"I'm afraid that the country's judiciary will worsen in the absence of good supervision. Judges will no longer have anything to fear," he said.

He expected that the judicial commission would comprise figures with integrity and expertise in legal matters so they can disregard any signs of intervention.