Judicial reform essential to support democracy

Judicial reform essential to support democracy

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The acceleration of judicial reform is crucial to the country as
it moves toward becoming a full-fledged democracy.

Democracy may not be only system that works. Yet, Indonesia --
the fourth most populous country on Earth -- has made a choice,
after experiencing 32 years of authoritarian rule under the New
Order regime.

Indonesians directly elected this year their President and
vice president. The historic election followed the elections of
politicians to the legislative bodies: the House of
Representatives and the newly introduced Regional Representatives
Council.

The executive and legislative powers represent two pillars of
democracy, and the people's mandate has made them powerful
institutions, though their achievements are another story.

Their emergence as powerful bodies in the early stages of
democracy here requires an equally powerful and credible
judiciary, as there is no democracy without legal certainty.

Judicial power, as the third pillar of democracy, plays a
pivotal role in, say, settling disputes between the President and
other state institutions.

For that reason, Indonesia set up the Constitutional Court to
safeguard the Constitution. The court could hear, among other
things, an impeachment motion filed by the People's Consultative
Assembly (MPR), which comprises the House and the Council.

Another top judicial authority, the Supreme Court, is mandated
to settle various cases, ranging from impeachment motions filed
against regional government heads to civil disputes involving
foreign investors.

These authorities are required to maintain their independence
and fairness, yet, it is public knowledge that judges are still
struggling to restore their image tainted by bribery and
corruption allegations.

Attempts to reform the judiciary have been ongoing over the
past three years, since the House amended certain pieces of
legislation on legal institutions.

This was followed by the annual Law Summit, which gathered the
country's law enforcement agencies -- the National Police, the
Attorney General's Office, the Supreme Court, and representatives
of legal organizations.

They agreed to continue with the reform of their respective
institutions, and build cooperation in law enforcement between
them. Concrete steps to enforce the law indiscriminately remain
to be seen, however.

Hopes are high for the new government of President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono to bring about the total reform of the National
Police and the Attorney General's Office, which fall under his
auspices. He did pledge to make law enforcement a top priority.

Both institutions, the vanguards of law enforcement, have been
known for their lack of initiative in improving their condition.

The way they handle high-profile corruption cases is a
crystal-clear example of their reluctance to change for the
better. Somehow, graft suspects have slipped through their
fingers during the prosecution, or execution, of legally binding
verdicts.

Susilo responded to public concerns by appointing former
Supreme Court justice Abdul Rahman Saleh as attorney general.

Known as an honest man, who began his career as a lawyer in a
legal aid institute, Abdul Rahman, better known as Arman, played
an important role in the move to reform the Supreme Court.

He rose to fame when he became the only justice who declared,
in February, Golkar Party leader Akbar Tandjung guilty of graft
involving State Logistics Agency funds. Akbar was acquitted as
the other four justices declared him not guilty.

It remains to be seen, however, whether Abdul Rahman could
resist possible intervention from his boss, as other presidents
apparently took such courses of action.

This year also saw the country move a step closer to the
reform of the judiciary as the Supreme Court assumed control of
the military court from the Indonesian Military (TNI), as part of
the one-roof judicial system that is expected to result in an
independent Supreme Court.

The transfer of control over the military court will enable a
district court to hear criminal cases involving soldiers, which
was impossible in the past.

The reform movement has also sparked demands for the
establishment of special courts to hear industrial and fisheries
disputes.

Chief Justice Bagir Manan has criticized the demands, as the
courts would not be supervised by the Supreme Court.

The court for industrial disputes, for example, would involve
the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration. Its judges would
consist of career judges, government officials, labor
organization representatives and business figures.

Bagir, known as an open-minded person, has formally asked the
government to postpone the establishment of the special courts.

He has also called for the establishment of a judicial
commission as the independence of the Supreme Court, without
proper supervision, would only enable it to abuse its power.

Under existing regulations, the planned judicial commission
has the authority to select Supreme Court justices and monitor
its performance. The House is yet to finish the deliberation of
the bill on the judicial commission.

So far, only the Supreme Court has shown consistency in its
internal reform movement. Supported by some foreign institutions
and local non-governmental organizations, the 59-year-old Supreme
Court has set up and started implementing its reform blueprint.

The performance of the Constitutional Court may also be seen
as a major development in the country's judicial reform.

Set up late last year, it has the potential to hand down
quality verdicts, though, so far, some of them have been
controversial.

The court has been credited with adopting transparency. Its
hearings are open to the public and its verdicts accessible via
the internet.

It also bans its nine justices, their assistants and staff
members from any backroom deals .

The biggest challenge facing the Constitutional Court is how
to maintain its transparency and improve the capability of its
personnel.