Influential figures should stay out of the courts

Influential figures should stay out of the courts

A'an Suryana and Riyadi Suparno, The Jakarta Post,
Jakarta

More and more law firms are being established by both current
and former influential public servants, including former military
commanders and former high-ranking officials at the Attorney
General's Office and the Supreme Court, which might lead to
conflicts of interest and endanger court independency.

Leading advocates Frans Hendra Winarta and Amir Syamsuddin say
the phenomenon is disturbing and could further undermine the
courts' already weak credibility.

"The new trend is an impetus for rampant intervention,
conflict of interest and the wielding of power in the day-to-day
activities of the court, undermining the independent judiciary,"
Frans told The Jakarta Post over the weekend.

More worrisome is when a law firm is established by active
high-ranking officials. The possibility for conflicts of
interests are infinite.

Moreover, if the firm is affiliated to current Minister of
Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra -- called Ihza &
Izha (formerly Yusril Ihza Mahendra & Partners) -- how can judges
rule against their client?

"The judges, whose promotions completely depend on their
superiors, namely minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra, will inevitably
produce verdicts in favor of the minister's law firm," said
Frans.

He said the phenomenon would affect the judges' decisions in
adverse ways, which certainly would lead to an obstruction of
justice.

Meanwhile, TM Luthfi Yazid, a partner at Ihza & Ihza,
confirmed the law firm was established by Yusril after he was
sacked from the Cabinet by former president Abdurrahman Wahid.

He left the firm after he was appointed justice minister by
President Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Yusril's departure from Yusril Ihza Mahendra & Partners left
his brother Yusron Ihza to run the firm under a new name.

Despite the close relation with Yusril, Luthfi rejected
allegations it had exploited Yusril's name to win cases, saying
it did not always win.

"We have lost around seven or 10 times in the West Jakarta
District Court. If we exploit Yusril's name, the judge would not
let us lose a single case," he said.

However, the recent controversial verdict issued by the South
Jakarta District Court in favor of a client of Ihza & Ihza may
serve as an example of an unequal legal battle. (see box story).

But Ihza & Ihza is not the only law office affiliated to
influential figures in the country. There are others such as
Hendropriyono & Partners, founded by the head of the National
Intelligence Body (BIN), Lt. Gen. (ret.) A. M. Hendropriyono.

There are also law firms established by influential former
state officials such as Wiranto & Co. Attorneys at Law, belonging
to former Indonesian Military (TNI) commander Gen. (ret.)
Wiranto, Andi Ghalib & Associates, belonging to former attorney
general M. Andi Ghalib, and Roesmanhadi and Associates: Advocates
and Counsellors at Law, owned by former National Police chief
Gen. (ret). Roesmanhadi.

In addition, There are about 30 active legislators with legal
practices.

According to Amir Syamsuddin, the flourishing law firms
affiliated to influential figures could be attributed to the
prevailing culture where Indonesian people seek out those with
power and influence rather than rely on laws or written rules,
because quite simply, in this society, people have more
confidence in powerful groups -- legal or not -- rather than real
laws or true justice.

"Indonesian people do not trust the legal system to be
impartial or to have integrity. Therefore, people are eager to
hire influential and powerful people to make sure the judges will
issue verdicts in their favor," Amir told the Post.

Amir shared Frans' view, saying the apparent conflict of
interest would seriously erode any integrity left in the legal
apparatus.

Both Amir and Frans agreed that action must be taken to avoid
the conflicts of interest, and the measures must have strong
legal grounds, and therefore, must be included in the bill on
advocacy, currently being debated by the House of
Representatives.

The bill has in some ways imposed measures to reduce possible
conflicts of interests among advocates, but still fails to
regulate the ownership of law firms.

The bill, for instance, bars civil servants, active members of
the military and the police from practicing law (Article 3).

The bill also requires lawyers who become state officials to
cease their legal practice temporarily during their tenure as
state officials (Article 19).

The bill, however, fails to bar public servants or state
officials from owning law firms.

Amir said the bill must regulate the ownership of law firms by
public servants or state officials, as well as to prevent former
public servants and state officials from practicing law or
establishing their own law firms.

In the United States, for example, former public servants
could only set up a law firm or practice law as an advocate five
years after their tenures in office ended, Amir said.

"Here, former leading legal figures are now competing to set
up law firms. How could their former subordinates issue verdicts
against these former influential figures?"

Though deliberation of the bill is nearing completion, it is
not yet too late to insert those clauses into the bill to stop
this disturbing trend, he said.