EDITORIAL BUAT SELASA 6 APRIL 2004

EDITORIAL BUAT SELASA 6 APRIL 2004

On judicial reform

From a certain point of view, the action taken by the Ministry
of Justice and Human Rights last week to transfer its powers over
judicial administrative and financial affairs to the Supreme
Court is unquestionably a step in the right direction.

Until the ministry's announcement of the action last week, the
administering of justice in this country was executed by a
judicial apparatus that had for decades prevailed under a system
that could only be called peculiar in any democracy.
Administrative matters such as the appointment, promotion and
remuneration of judges fell under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, while the Supreme Court
took responsibility over the actual dispensing of justice.

Quite naturally, under such a system in which a Cabinet
minister was in firm control of the careers and personal welfare
of judges, the government could steer the course of justice to
fit its own interests, although in theory judges remained free to
make their decisions in accordance with the dictates of their
conscience. Which, of course, was precisely why this
unconventional system was introduced, in a variety of forms,
under the authoritarian regimes of president Sukarno in the late
1950s and president Soeharto in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Not since the early 1950s, during the brief period of Indonesia's
experiment with parliamentary democracy -- the so-called "era of
free fight liberalism" -- has the country known anything close to
a truly independent judiciary.

Not, of course, that the system guaranteed that this would
always work to the advantage of those in power. A few cases are
known in which judges, including those of the Supreme Court, made
decisions that could only have irked the authorities, but it was
a judge with strong convictions indeed who could withstand the
temptation of huge material rewards for compliance or the threat
of penalties in the form of demotion or dismissal for dissent.

Clearly, the action taken by the Ministry of Justice and Human
Rights last week is a step in the right direction, in the sense
that it helps to ensure the judiciary's independence from the
government, in accordance with the trias politica principle of
the separation of state powers.

Unfortunately, however, Indonesians have so far greeted this
latest development in their country's judicial reform efforts
with a good deal of skepticism. Few Indonesians believe that
their courts will be free from interference by people with either
money or power, or both, as long as judges continue to pronounce
judgments that run counter to the common sense of the people.
Although bribery, or just plain bias, is often difficult to prove
in court, several cases reeking of blatant favoritism in the
recent past have not helped the efforts to restore the public's
confidence in the judiciary.

Although at present candidates for the Supreme Court must be
screened by the House of Representatives for professionalism and
a "clean" record before they take up their posts, this does not
seem to be enough to guarantee that those who make the grade also
pass the public's scrutiny.

The case of House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung,
who was convicted by two lower courts for corruption and yet was
acquitted on all charges by the Supreme Court, is a case in
point. In other words, although ceding authority over the
handling of all judicial matters to the Supreme Court is the
right action to take, it is not enough to ensure that true
justice can be achieved merely by this single step. The public
demands accountability from a Supreme Court and from a legal
system they can scrutinize.

It has not helped that this same skepticism over the ongoing
judicial reforms is apparently shared by observers abroad. The
lowly reputation of the Indonesian judiciary has been cited as
one of the main reasons that foreign investors are staying away.

With the legislative elections now behind them, Indonesians
can only hope that this matter of legal reform will get the
priority treatment it deserves from the legislature. After all, a
taintless professional judiciary is key to the country's
resurgence.