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.