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)