'Judiciary independence never compromised'
'Judiciary independence never compromised'
JAKARTA (JP): Chief Justice Sarwata denied over the weekend
charges that the judiciary had given its independence to the
bureaucracy.
At a rare press conference after the breaking of the fast at
his office, Sarwata said that even President Soeharto had
promised not to interfere in the judiciary.
"The president gave his personal guarantee to me last
November," said Sarwata, who was appointed chief justice by
presidential decree in November.
Critics have questioned the judiciary's independence because
the courts had almost always decided in favor of the government
and the powerful.
Sarwata rejected the idea of centralizing the judiciary's
management under the Supreme Court instead of sharing it with the
Attorney General's Office.
He argued that Indonesia did not strictly adhere to the
principles of Trias Politica (the separation of powers into three
branches: legislative, judicial and executive bodies).
Observers hope that clear separation of powers will improve
the judiciary and legislature.
Sarwata said, "All three bodies work toward a common goal,
hand in hand. For instance, a Court doesn't have its own state-
owned company, therefore it is financially dependent on the
executive which proposes the judiciary's budget to the
legislature.
"However, never to date and never in the future will the other
branches of power intervene in the judiciary's independence," he
said.
Many legal experts and practitioners, the latest being the
Indonesian Jurists Association, have suggested that the judiciary
be managed by the Supreme Court alone instead of in conjunction
with the Ministry of Justice.
Experts believe the judiciary will be more likely to be
independent under "one-roof" management.
The Ministry of Justice administers the judiciary, including
the salaries and appointment of judges, whereas the Supreme Court
manages judicial technicalities. Experts said this made the
courts bias toward the government.
Frequently cited cases of bias include the Supreme Court's
decisions on land appropriation for the construction of
Kedungombo Dam in Central Java and the imprisonment of labor
leader Muchtar Pakpahan.
On Kedungombo Dam, then chief justice Purwoto S. Gandasubrata
overturned in 1994 an earlier ruling by justice Asikin Kusumah
Atmadja that favored 34 Central Java residents affected by the
dam's construction.
Asikin ruled in 1993 that the government had violated the law
by starting construction of the dam in January 1989 before the
residents had agreed to compensation.
Late last year, then chief justice Soerjono overturned a
decision by Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto that exonerated Pakpahan
of charges of inciting labor unrest.
Sarwata said the Supreme Court was determined to process its
backlog of 16,599 cases. The Court aimed to process 10,000 cases
a year so that by the year 2000 it would only have a "normal"
backlog of cases. (08)