Endless discourse hampers efforts against corruption

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)