Question: Why does the judiciary system still produce controversial verdicts amid the ongoing reform?

Answer: The reform in the judiciary system is not based on a clear concept. The Supreme Court has several justices appointed after a thorough screening process. Meanwhile, high courts and district courts also have young, dedicated judges, but they cannot develop well because they are not supported by a judiciary system or working climate that are conducive to producing fair verdicts.

What is wrong with the court system?

The development concept in the judiciary system has failed to address all the challenges, and so we see the public's frustration over the frequent miscarriages of justice.

For instance, public frustration has emerged from the slow process of the legal proceeding from the district court to the Supreme Court due to the chronic shortages of judges and the backlogs of cases.

The recruitment of more justices will not solve the problem because the Supreme Court receives appeal cases from district courts, the religious court, the military court, the State Administrative Court, the anticorruption court, the trade court and the labor court.

The public frustration cannot be addressed under such a condition.

A selection process is needed to filter out the kinds of cases that can be brought to the Supreme Court. Certain cases such as separation cases, debt cases and other minor ones should stop at the high court level to avoid backlogs of cases in the Supreme Court.

Are there other factors that make people frustrated with the judiciary system?

The bureaucratic culture is still a key feature of the Indonesian court system and this has contributed to the slow processing of cases.

If the Supreme Court is committed to creating a clean and fair judiciary system, it should call all related parties and the unscrupulous judges and clerks to investigate the reports (of wrongdoing) and take actions against them in accordance with the law. It has to adopt more transparency in developing the court system and to regain the people's confidence.

How do you evaluate Chief Justice Bagir Manan's performance

A: The Supreme Court is also facing a leadership crisis. Being good and brave is not enough. Chief Justice Bagir Manan is a legal scholar and has a breadth of knowledge about law, but he does not have strong leadership skills to run the whole judiciary system.

Under the current condition, the Supreme Court is in dire need of a strong leader who is able to encourage the court to make wise and fair decisions and closely supervise the court system. If needed, the chief justice has to conduct a sting operation to catch corrupt judges and court clerks as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) did in arresting Mulyana Wira Kusuma to reveal the graft case and the alleged corruption in the General Election Commission (KPU).

Bagir Manan will win public support if he is 'creative' in taking such measures, including unconventional steps, to eliminate, or at least to weaken, the court mafia and case brokers.

Although the Supreme Court does not conduct investigations, it should coordinate with the police and the Attorney General's Office to closely supervise case investigations in the two institutions.

What is your comment on the poor payment of law enforcement personnel?

The government should show its political commitment to creating a fair and clean judiciary system by improving the social welfare of law enforcers.

But a hike in their wages alone will not eliminate corruption.

The high payment of lawyers and legal consultants cannot be used as an excuse to justify corruption. Law enforcement personnel should have realized from the beginning of their recruitment that they would not be paid as much as lawyers.

What does the government have to do now?

The anticorruption movement the government has embarked upon is a step toward significant progress, but it is not enough, because it is still selective and discriminatory in bringing to court those alleged to be corrupt.

This half-hearted elimination of corruption has raised skepticism among the people and a fundamental question on how far the government will go.

Some people remain skeptical about the anticorruption movement because it was launched only to fulfill his (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) pledge he made during his presidential campaign last year.

The government should bring to court everyone who has allegedly committed corruption regardless of their political or social backgrounds if it is committed to eliminate the culture of corruption.