Collusion on the Supreme Court

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