Fair and just trials still far away: Experts
Fair and just trials still far away: Experts
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
While the revisions of the laws on judicial powers and the
Supreme Court generally prevent government intervention, fair and
just trials are still a long way off, experts say.
Rizqi S. Assegaff from the Institute for Research and Advocacy
for Independent Courts (LeIP) and Harkristuti Harkrisnowo of the
University of Indonesia said on Friday that a lack of supervisory
regulations and overlapping of laws could still adversely
influence court trials.
"The revisions were made in a hurry and lacked the people's
participation in the deliberations. We found many weaknesses that
could end up becoming negative issues for the Supreme Court and
the judiciary system," Rizqi said.
He was asked to comment on the House of Representatives (DPR)
decision on Thursday to endorse the revisions.
Rizqi revealed that the revised laws gave too much power to
the Supreme Court justices, as the laws could be used to pressure
judges during certain trials, without mentioning an independent
commission which could monitor chief justices.
He suggested that the laws should have explicitly stated that
the Supreme Court could not dismiss or remove a judge without
first getting confirmation from a judicial commission.
"I have heard that certain chief justices have planned to
transfer certain judges to remote areas after the revision of the
laws," Rizqi said.
He said the laws also threatened the independence of trials
and stipulated that the Supreme Court would be in charge of
supervising lawyers, although the law on advocacy, which was
approved earlier this year, states that a legal counselor must be
independent.
He also said that the Supreme Court could claim that their law
was legally stronger since it was the most recent, although both
are considered special laws (lex specialis).
The House endorsed on Thursday the revisions on Laws No.
14/1070 on Judicial Power and No. 14/1985 on the Supreme Court,
taking away the power of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
to intervene in the country's court system.
Under the old laws, the ministry was in charge of promotions,
placement, salaries and administrative affairs of the judges,
while the Supreme Court handled only appeals.
During the authoritarian president Soeharto's regime, judges
often favored defendants, mostly in political cases and a
rejection of government intervention, could lead to dismissal or
transfer to an outer island court.
With the revision of the laws, all administrative affairs and
assets of the court are now in the hands of the Supreme Court.
Harkristuti supported Rizqi's opinion that the laws did not
clearly mention supervisory bodies -- external or internal --
that could check the power of the court.
"I also do not see any political will from the current
government to establish an independent and just system. It will
still take time to develop it," she said.
She said that some requirements for an independent judicial
system, such as financial support from the government and
preparation of judges, was still missing.
However, Harkristuti welcomed the revisions of the laws as a
good start which should be followed by other laws, including the
establishment of a judicial commission.
"I know that the Supreme Court has prepared a blueprint to
improve the performance of the judiciary in the future. It's not
bad," she said.