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.