Collusion story at Supreme Court continues

Collusion story at Supreme Court continues

By T. Sima Gunawan

JAKARTA (JP): Chief Justice Soerjono attempted earlier this
month to put an end to the uproar over alleged collusion and
bribery at the Supreme Court by announcing that the investigation
team found no evidence to support the charges.

The story, however, is far from being over.

Deputy Chief Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto, who first revealed
the alleged collusion, persisted in his efforts to prove the
allegation as true. He refused to accept the report at face
value. He demanded that he be given the opportunity to read the
report, saying he had all the evidence that collusion did take
place in the Supreme Court, which many people here refer to as
"the last fortress of justice". He went as far as asking Vice
President Try Sutrisno to follow up the results of the
investigation team.

His stance has apparently irritated some people. Soerjono had
reportedly given him a warning for going public with his
allegation that a number of Supreme Court senior judges had
colluded in order to try and later acquit the defendant of a
fraud document case.

Last week, Adi was forbidden to talk at a seminar organized by
the Indonesian Islamic University in Yogyakarta. He was also told
to cancel his plan to meet judges there. There were even reports
that Soerjono plans to request President Soeharto's permission to
dismiss Adi. As of yesterday, the reports could not be confirmed.

To add insult to injury, Adi's own colleagues lambasted him
for his stance. The Indonesian Judges Association said Adi should
have respected and accepted the result of the investigation.

But support from many legal experts and human right activists
is growing. They have praised his courage in revealing the dark
side of the Supreme Court and for the tenacity in trying to prove
his allegation.

"We should be proud that we have a brave justice like him,"
Djohan Djauhari, Secretary-General of the Indonesian Bar
Association, told The Jakarta Post earlier this week.

He agreed with Adi that the results of the investigation team
should be followed up in a transparent manner. "Everybody is
concerned about the Supreme Court, and people want a thorough
investigation of the case," Djohan said.

Although Soerjono has stated there was no collusion in the
Supreme Court, he admitted there was a "violation of the
procedures" in the way the fraud case was parceled out to the
wrong panel of judges. This was contained in the 1,561-page
classified report.

Soerjono, however, failed to elaborate on how the violation of
the procedures took place, and what actions would or had been
taken against the violators.

Adi had charged that there was a Rp 1.4 billion (US$600,000)
bribe involved in the document fraud case against Ram Gulumal, an
Indian citizen who is the founder and principal of the Gandhi
Memorial International School in North Jakarta.

Money could have changed hands in the process that led the
Court to acquit Ram, Adi said. He pointed out that the Supreme
Court's Director for General Crimes, Sujatmi Soedarmoko, had
confessed she rearranged the group of judges to try the case.
Sujatmi has been demoted following the confession.

Ram was defended by Djazuli Bahar, a former Supreme Court
justice and also a former chairman of the Indonesian Judges
Association.

Collusion and bribery are by no means new in the country's
judiciary.

Embarassing

One of the most embarrassing cases took place in 1987. An
angry woman hurled one of her shoes toward a Central Jakarta
District Court judge after he rendered a verdict which she
considered too light for the defendant.

The woman claimed she had handed over a sum of money to the
judge in exchange for a harsh punishment for the defendant. The
judge was later transferred to a small town in Central Java.

It's a known fact that there were judges who have been demoted
for abusing their power, but none of them have ever faced
criminal charges.

Last year, former justice Z. Asikin said that 50 percent of
Indonesia's judges were corrupt. Another former justice, Bismar
Siregar, also admitted that many judges as well as justices were
not "clean".

One of the obstacles toward proving such allegations, despite
the abundant reports on bribery and other violations, is the fact
that the perpetrators are legal experts who know how to cover
their misdeeds. There is also the tendency of the courts to
conceal judges' wrongdoings in order to maintain "the good image"
of the judiciary.

The legislation authorizes the Supreme Court to supervise and
take action against delinquent judges. But who has the right to
oversee the Supreme Court justices?

Some experts say that judges are accountable to the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR); these people have urged the MPR to
form a team to probe the collusion case. Other people disagreed,
saying there is no legislation stipulating such an action.

The Supreme Court is regulated under MPR Decree No.
III/MPR/1978, Law No. 14, 1970 on Basic Judicial Power and Law
No. 14, 1985 on the Supreme Court. The legislations clearly
stipulate that the Supreme Court should be free from the
government's influence as well as "other influences". But they
mention nothing about the Supreme Court's accountability.

"MPR should discuss this matter in their next session and
issue a regulation about the Supreme Court's accountability,"
Djohan said.

MPR is the supreme sovereign body that meets every five years
to produce the Broad Guidelines of State Policies and to elect a
president. It comprises the 500 members of the House of
Representatives and 500 other appointees.

Justice Adi himself had once expressed concern over the lack
of legislation on the Supreme Court's accountability.

"The Supreme Court is not accountable to anyone in this world.
The justices are accountable to their own conscience," he told an
international law seminar in Tokyo in October last year.

"If they deliberately do something wrong, they will be like a
motorist in a `hit and run' case, who can not be at peace because
of the misdeed they committed," he said.

He admitted that "the proper exercise of authority and
procedural justice" -- a `legalese' for `independent judiciary'
-- in Indonesia has far to go before meeting the public's
expectations. However, he said he was optimistic that things
would change soon.

"Now that there is more openness in Indonesia's political
life, which allows people to criticize openly, I hope things will
begin to change soon," he said.