Interpreting laws on corruption
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conformity with Article 27 of Law No. 14/1970, which has been
replaced by Law No. 35/1999 on the principles of judicial power.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