Interpreting laws on corruption

With reference to the news article titled NGOs propose Supreme Court audit team (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 1, 2001) and another article titled NGOs blast two court rulings on bribery cases (the Post, Aug. 27, 2001), allow me to make the following comment.

The proposal by lawyers that the Supreme Court issue its ruling on differences in interpretation regarding the laws on corruption, Law No. 3/1971 and Law No. 31, 1999, is not in place as the Supreme Court issues rulings addressed to the state's higher institutions and the public who are need of those laws. The Supreme Court does not issue a ruling on a law in order that judges comply with the ruling.

It is true that Article 32 of Law No. 14/1985 stipulates that the Supreme Court is authorized to supervise how the judicature runs and how judges behave at all levels of the judicature but the Supreme Court does not have the right to intervene in the examination of and ruling on a case.

A judge enjoys the freedom of making a ruling on a case and this is regulated in Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution. It is then up to the judge's commitment, professionalism and courage to find and delve into the legal values arising in our society in conformity with Article 27 of Law No. 14/1970, which has been replaced by Law No. 35/1999 on the principles of judicial power.

I agree that the eradication of corruption must be supported by all layers of the community and that to avoid confusion about the law on corruption, the government and the House of Representatives should immediately revise Law No. 31/1999. In this context, it is not right to ask the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the law on corruption.

In making his ruling on a criminal case, a judge relies heavily on the quality of the indictment that the prosecutor draws up. A judge must always bear in mind that his indictment must be drawn up carefully, accurately and professionally. It is wrong to blame judges for frequently rejecting or canceling a prosecutor's indictment without knowing why these judges have done so. At this juncture, allow me, also, to call on the Attorney General's Office and the Supreme Court to establish coordination, integration and synchronization and introduce simplification in the drawing up of an indictment by a prosecutor so that there will be no reason for a judge to reject or cancel an indictment during a trial on various legal pretexts, as has been the practice all these years. If the indictment is properly drawn up, a prosecutor will only have to prove the correctness of his indictment during a court session.

BINSAR GULTOM

Judge and Secretary

Indonesian Association of Judges

(IKAHI), Bogor District Court