Judges not up to scratch: Lotulung

Judges not up to scratch: Lotulung

By T. Sima Gunawan and Sugianto Tandra

JAKARTA (JP): He used to be a judge, but after becoming a law
professor he resigned.

"I wanted to dedicate myself to education and research," said
Prof. Paulus Effendie Lotulung.

Lotulung, who speaks Indonesian, French, Dutch, German and
English, is director of the continuing education program in
administrative law at the University of Indonesia. The 53-year-
old professor is also head of the department of state
administrative law at the University of Pakuan in Bogor, West
Jakarta. He said he teaches at the unpopular private university
because he believes that the students need him.

Lotulung started his career in the legal field as a judge in
the small town of Ngawi, East Java, at the age of 20 after
graduating from the Sekolah Hakim (Judge College) in Malang in
1963. He later went to the University of Airlangga, Surabaya.
Between 1978 and 1982 he studied at the Sorbonne in Paris. He
returned with a magistrate degree and doctorate degree in law.
After working at the Supreme Court for two years, he became a
judge at the Central Jakarta District Court. From 1991 to 1994 he
was a judge at the Jakarta State District Court.

After in 1994, he resigned from his post as judge to become
head of research and development at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's research and development department has
three main duties: to formulate the curriculum for the education
and training of judges; to study the unwritten legal system; and
to study the mechanism of judicial administration and ways of
providing a speedy trial.

Lotulung talked to The Jakarta Post last week. Below is an
excerpt from the interview.

Question: Do you think that the education and training
curriculum for judges is adequate?

Answer: We have had the training and education program for a
long time. But in providing the training courses, we have to
adjust to legal developments. The judges need training in
business law in accordance with developments in business and
globalization. They need training in environmental law and other
things which they do not get at university. They also need
training for new developments in civil law, like mergers,
franchising and licensing.

Frankly speaking, judges are trained as generalists, not
specialists. But today we need specialists.

Q: How do judges generally perform during training?

A: They do well. They are clever. But maybe they do not really
develop (their skills). They are good on campus, but when they
finish they do not develop their knowledge. This can make them
stupid again.

They should not only develop their knowledge of how to handle
cases. Judges should read a lot and follow legal developments by
attending seminars and discussions. Judges should master foreign
languages, especially English. In this era of globalization, many
foreign lawyers come to this country with their own arguments and
their own legal system. We should know the legal terms in
English.

Q: How many judges do we have?

A: There are about 5,000 judges in the four courts -- the
general courts, the religious courts, the military courts and the
administrative courts.

They are facing increasing public demands. The demand for
quality rulings, with sound legal reasoning from judicial,
sociological and philosophical points of view. The public is
demanding that decisions be executed in a way that allows for
legal certainty. The people are also demanding an efficient
judicial mechanism (that embodies) the principles of speedy,
simple and low-cost trials.

All court decisions should be transparent enough that people
know how and why the judges made their decisions.

Q: Can our judges meet these demands?

A: We have taken the first step. It is a long journey but
without passing the first step, how could we get there? We
started with research and development and with training.

Q: What about the mounting criticism or poor court decisions?

A: There are also many good decisions but the media doesn't
expose and analyze the good ones. I believe that there are still
good judges but you just don't give them exposure.

Q: And if the bad decisions come from the Supreme Court?

A: I can't comment on the Supreme Court. But we are entering
the 21st century. In the globalization era, law enforcement will
become the main focus of foreign investors. National stability is
important, but the legal security is equally important.

Q: How about ethics in the handling of cases? Some have
suggested that our judges tend to neglect ethics.

A: That depends on the person. Ethics are taught at university
and during their training, but why is this not reflected in their
decisions? Is it the complex developments in society which make
them neglect the law? This has to be studied.

Back in the 1950s, when judges rode bicycles and lived in
modest houses, the judicial branch was highly respected. Back
then people did not say bad things about judges. Today court
buildings are good, judges are dressed neatly and they drive
cars.

But why is there so much contempt for the courts? Does this
mean that something should be fixed? In what way? Should they
improve their dedication or their knowledge or should the
government improve their social welfare?

Q: How much do judges earn?

A: I can't say. But judges in other countries earn much more
money, especially those in Singapore. Malaysia and even India pay
their judges more than we do.

In Indonesia, salaries are lower, but considering that they
also receive allowances and government housing, maybe the welfare
of Indonesian and Indian judges is more or less the same. But
don't compare (their salaries) to Malaysia or Singapore.

Q: What do you think about our legal system?

A: As an academician I think it is good enough but it depends
on how it is implemented. We need to empower the judiciary and be
sure of its commitment to enforce the law properly.

Q: Judicial administration is handled by the Ministry of
Justice, but technically judges are under the Supreme Court's
supervision. Doesn't this affect a judge's independence?

A: That is an old issue. Actually, independence depends on the
judges themselves. They should be able to make a distinction
between technical/judicial matters. Technical and judicial
matters are regulated by the law. If it (independence) has
something to do with the judges' attitudes, that is something
else.

Q: But how about the status of judges as civil servants?
Doesn't that affect their independence?

A: Well, not necessarily. What is important is that the judges
execute good legal reasoning when making their decisions. Even
though we are civil servants, this does not mean that we have to
side with the government.

Q: Facts show that in most cases involving the government, the
courts rule in favor of the government.

A: That does not mean that the system is wrong. It is the
attitude of the judges which must be changed, not the system.

Q: How about the Supreme Court justices? Don't you think that
they should be better than the judges of the lower courts?

A: Again, it all depends on their consciences. They say: "I'll
be accountable to God." The accountability is important, but it
has not been reflected in the judiciary -- from the lowest level
court level to the Supreme Court. I think it would be good if
court rulings, jurisprudence, were later published with notations
from university members. Justices would make good decisions
because they would be read by the people. If they are not
published, only the insiders, like us, will know.

Q: About the case review process. How is jurisprudence at the
Supreme Court level?

A: There is jurisprudence in the case of Sengkon and Karta
(who were found guilty at the first two court levels but cleared
of all charges by the Supreme Court) but it is not something
permanent.

Q: Do justices have different interpretations of the law?

A: Yes, but I believe that there is only one truth. Otherwise,
the judiciary would have collapsed. I believe there should be
only one truth.

If the condition of the judiciary remains this way, just hope
it is a child's disease that can be treated later.

Q: How bad is the disease?

A: I still have hope. There are still many things we have to
do. The judicial authority and also the people have to work on
this. Don't just blame judges or the courts. Society needs
introspection. Do society's members obey the law? No. Just look,
people cross the street at will, they stop buses at places that
are not bus stops.

So, if the law is sick, it is not only because of the courts.
People contribute to the sickness. If people obeyed the law, I
think we would have a legal culture. All of us have to strive for
improvement in our fields. We need to improve our awareness of
the law.

Q: Who do you mean by we? Does that include government
officials?

A: Absolutely. Not only the people, but also officials. We all
have to stick to the principles of a state based on law. (sim/08)