Collusion on the Supreme Court

Allegations of collusion on the Supreme Court (The Jakarta Post, April 15 and Kompas, April 15) threaten jurisprudentie- recht (Dutch for judge-made law).

The Chief Justice has authorized the Special Supervision Coordinator within the Supreme Court to conduct an investigation. However, the Deputy Chief Justice who brought the case to the attention of the Central Jakarta Prosecutor's Office has said that an internal investigation team within the Supreme Court would not be objective.

Academics such as Satjipto Rahardjo of Diponegoro University have said that Deputy Chief Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto should have reported the case to the PO Box set up for complaints by the office of the vice president.

Sri Sumantri, a constitutional law scholar at Padjadjaran University of Bandung, suggested that the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) set up a special commission to handle the investigation. He also expressed the view that the internal investigation team within the Supreme Court would not function objectively.

Article 12 of Law No. 14/1985 governing the Supreme Court, lists five instances of misconduct which could result in the dismissal of the justices. These include criminal acts and violating their oath of office.

If Adi Andojo had reason and evidence for bringing the charges to the Prosecutor's Office, then the issue falls within the ambit of penal law. As correctly stated by Prof. Satjipto Rahardjo, the remedy is legal (the Post, April 15, 1996). It is the individual's misconduct, and not the constitutional status of the Supreme Court, that counts.

Bringing the issue to the MPR could have a negative effect in that it could undermine the validity of Law No. 14/1985 and leave the impression that the country's laws do not work.

The idea of submitting the issue to the MPR may be sound theoretically, but whether it can actually be implemented is another problem.

SAM SUHAEDI

Jakarta