Judicial system lacks strong leadership, proper oversight

Judicial system lacks strong leadership, proper oversight

There is widespread public frustration over the contentious
verdicts recently handed down by the district courts and Supreme
Court in trying several high-profile cases. Noted lawyer Todung
Mulya Lubis spoke with The Jakarta Post's Ridwan Max Sijabat
about the corrupt judiciary.

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

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
Kusumah 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.