Justice Adi praised and criticized

JAKARTA (JP): A judge who blew the whistle on alleged bribery in the Supreme Court has received the support of another senior legal official, but has been criticized by his superior for failing to consult his seniors.

Chief Justice Soerjono said yesterday that his office would study a letter that Deputy Chief Justice for General Crimes Adi Andojo Soetjipto sent to the Jakarta Prosecutors' Office requesting a review of a document fraud case. Adi has publicly said that bribery is rampant in the Supreme Court and that a senior judge might have taken a bribe of Rp 1.4 billion (US$600,000) from a defendant in the case.

"We have created a team to investigate whether there's truth in Adi's allegation," Soerjono said after meeting with President Soeharto.

"I regret, however, that Adi did not inform me or Vice Chief Justice Muhammad Djaelani, as his superiors, before sending the letter," he said.

Soerjono also said that Adi's decision to send the letter, which he reportedly wrote on unofficial letter paper, was not a legally recognized practice.

"A judge can only inform disputing parties of legal measures that could be taken once a court reaches a decision, but he cannot ask the prosecutor's office for a review," he said. "It's the authority of the prosecutors' office to decide whether to ask a court for a review."

Attorney General Singgih however disclosed yesterday that the prosecutors' office can actually probe the alleged collusion in the Supreme Court without waiting for a request for a review of the case.

He said: "With the President's approval, the prosecutors' office can even make arrests" if it finds evidence of Supreme Court senior judges' involvement in the alleged collusion.

Singgih reiterated that the prosecutors' office has the authority to investigate if there is evidence that Supreme Court judges committed crimes. This authority is guaranteed by Law No. 14/1985, he said.

The Attorney General's office is currently considering whether to review the case of the document fraud. Singgih said, however, the prosecutors' office can proceed with an investigation and not wait until his office completes reviewing the case.

In addition, Singgih said, everybody still has to wait for the results of the investigation team that Soerjono has mentioned.

"The results of the Supreme Court's Coordinator for Special Supervision may be used to indict the senior judges," he said.

Singgih said his office was not sitting back on the case. "We have started collecting data," he said.

The alleged collusion became public after a recent edition of Forum Keadilan magazine revealed the secret letter from Adi to the Jakarta Prosecutors' Office.

Adi asked the office to review the Supreme Court's decision to acquit Ram Gulumal of charges of unlawful land procurement for the construction of the Indian Gandhi Memorial International School in Ancol, North Jakarta.

The magazine reported that Gulumal's acquittal had sparked controversy among senior judges because there were indications that the judge presiding over the case had received a bribe of Rp 1.4 billion to acquit the defendant.

Adi Andojo reportedly asked the Prosecutor's Office to also delay the implementation of the Supreme Court decision, which ruled last July that the charges against Gulumal for falsifying documents could not be proven.

Gulumal, 57, an Indian national who came to Indonesia in 1957, is the principal at the first Gandhi Memorial School located in Pasar Baru, Central Jakarta. The school itself was founded by the Bombay Merchants Association in 1950.

In 1973, Gulumal sent an application to the governor of Jakarta to buy 10,000 square meters of land in Ancol. He later built the Gandhi Memorial International School on the land.

The allegation that he falsified document was made in 1991 by the association's new management, which controls the management of the Indian school.

Gulumal was sentenced by the Central Jakarta District Court in 1993 to one year in prison for falsifying documents to acquire the land and permits necessary for establishing the new school.

The verdict was upheld by the Jakarta High Court on appeal but the sentence reduced to eight months.(imn)