Endless discourse hampers efforts against corruption

JAKARTA (JP): Legal analysts deemed that the endless arguing over the reversal of the burden of proof in corruption cases may overshadow the efforts to eradicate the crime.

They shared their views that the new system would not work if it were not supported by the investigators themselves.

Lawyer Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan said in a seminar on Wednesday that actually, without reversing the burden of proof, corruption cases could still be easily brought to court as long there were sufficient preliminary evidence.

"If there is a report that someone has committed corruption, and this is supported by (witnesses') testimonies and strong confidence of the prosecutors that a crime has occurred, that is enough to bring the case to trial.

"But the problem now is that prosecutors are always doubtful," he told the seminar, held by the research institute on human rights and humanitarian law of the University of 17 Agustus 1945.

Lawyers Indriyanto Seno Adji and Frans Hendra Winarta, members of the team revising the 1999 Anticorruption Law, said the new paradigm could only be used at trial, where suspects had to prove that their wealth was not obtained from corruption.

The prosecutors were still obliged to prove their charge that the suspects committed corruption, Indriyanto said.

The new anticorruption bill is now in the hands of legislators.

Law professor Loebby Loqman of the University of Indonesia argued that the new bill is actually similar to the old versions of the 1971 and 1999 Anticorruption Laws which allowed suspects to prove their innocence as being ordered by the judges.

But he warned of further problems, should the reversal of the burden of proof be imposed at the preliminary investigation, since it would violate the principle of the presumption of innocence, and it might also cause prosecutors to lose cases.

"Even if the prosecutors had strong evidence, the suspects could walk away, provided that they could hide any damaging evidence.

Frans stressed that the Attorney General's Office needed to be proactive and work professionally to handle corruption cases. Getting ready alone, as stated earlier by the Office's expert staff member Chairuman Harahap, was not enough.

He added that the prosecutors should cooperate with people and with concerned non-governmental organizations.

The idea of reversing the burden of proof was formally raised by President Abdurrahman Wahid recently to expedite the state's campaign to cleanse the government and to recover trillions of rupiah of state losses from corruption rampant during past regimes.

The investigation of many corruption cases could not be carried out thoroughly by the Attorney General's Office because evidence of such white collar crime was difficult to obtain.

Many people argued that should the new investigation system be endorsed, it could be used to handle past cases.

However, Indriyanto said, inserting a retroactive clause in the law to deal with cases occurring before it had been passed would only display the current government's intention to retaliate at its political rivals.

"Our amended constitutional law and the international law forbid retroactive principles. If we wanted to bring past cases to court we could still use the old law," he said. (bby)