Lawyers' challenges in the year 2000
Lawyers' challenges in the year 2000
By T. Mulya Lubis
JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia's economy will grow by 7 percent in the coming years, according to the World Bank. While per capita income will approach US$1,000, only one step away from the present figure of $920. This does not reflect equity in income distribution.
The social gap is still an issue. The same goes with monopoly, oligopoly and conglomeration.
But this does not hinder the flow of foreign capital and technology into the country, thanks to the ratification of General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.
All professions, including the Indonesian Bar Association (Ikadin), should be prepared to face the change with a critical mind. Rule of law, human rights and good governance, which have guided the works of Ikadin should be enforced to steel the association for future challenges.
Ikadin should always be the voice of the underdog. However, if the association is striving to become a truly professional bar association, it needs to broaden its inner self before it can be recognized as a professional organization of professionals, an organization participating in the nation's development, and political growth of the people, its laws, economy and culture.
What has to be done by Ikadin then?
The keyword here is professionalism. It is high time Ikadin clear itself from the domain of litigation since we are facing increasingly complex legal problems. For Ikadin not to branch out would stunt the profession, which would then be lost in the annals of history. It is for this reason that change is recommended for the association, it should change its system of organization and ways of working.
These activities should be led by departments related with sections of the law important in the life of the nation and the country.
Ikadin should at least participate in the development of the profession, like the International Bar Association which runs various departments as follows: 1. Legal aid department 2. Human rights department 3. Department of environmental law 4. Law of capital funds department 5. Department of intellectual properties 6. Investment laws department 7. Department of arbitrary laws 8. Islamic laws department 9. Department of land laws 10. Labor laws department
Ikadin's progress toward professionalism should start with the establishment of such departments. These departments would then need to conduct national seminars either independently, or in cooperation with other professional organizations every year.
Proceedings of such seminars should be published and documented.
Activities of the departments should relieve the duties of Ikadin's leaders, who could then concentrate on macro issues of political law and international relations. At the same time Ikadin would be expected to turn into a truly professional bar association embracing all law professions, including litigation lawyers and legal consultants.
The first ten years of Ikadin have gone by as a consolidation period. Those were the years when the profession was at stake from intense pressure from outside, including from the government. Ikadin, in its fierce struggle for the profession's integrity and independency, put pride in many lawyers hearts. History has proven that those who are less independent have been dislocated. This, however, does not mean that a culture of independence has been set up.
Independency for the profession should be pursued, until it reaches a dignified stage enjoyed in countries like Malaysia, the Philippines, Pakistan and India. It is a responsibility all of us bear, especially Indonesia's young lawyers. This is not a time to be complacent.
It is clear that the future of the profession is in the hands of the young generation. Regeneration, therefore, is but a logical consequence of Ikadin's existence. This is our second keyword. Times have changed and so have the rules of the game.
Any profession, including that of lawyers, should be able to read the signs of the times, they should be of an open and critical mind.
It is no longer a secret that the profession is in a weak position in the prevailing legal system of Indonesia; and the most vulnerable of all is the judiciary sector.
The law has lost its authority and supremacy. The law has been torn apart by various political, economic and private interests.
The old adage in law that it does not favor a person or persons, that it should always be on the side of justice, and that it should defend the poor and destitute, no longer holds any truth.
The law discriminates against subjects and has often turned justice upside down. Justice can be bought and it has become an unaffordable commodity. It is a tragedy and all of us are to be blamed. Ikadin cannot claim innocence.
How could this all have happened? Why is there a "court mafia"? Politicians would say that an erosion of authority has occurred, and it is because the government's political will has lost considerable strength to uphold the rules of law.
The government is more inclined to pay attention to economic growth. However, a simple explanation is that the ethics of the profession have become merely a matter of courtesy. In other words, ethics of the profession have been trampled upon. A demoralization process combined with that of commercialism has happened. Being a lawyer is no longer a noble profession.
Ikadin has an ethical code which has proven sufficient, although it needs to be perfected. Were this code honored, the country would experience much less law discrepancies. "Mafia court" cases would be curbed and there would be less derisive remarks about our legal system.
We should realize that derisions about the law came about because the profession generated a culture of corruption. The profession has not aimed for justice. The end has justified the means.
It is time to put our house in order if the profession is to be respected. Without ethics and regeneration the organization will stall. A home built on a poor foundation will collapse.
Many have talked about the need for the unification of lawyers' organizations in view of the year 2000, when the global market will materialize in line with the nation's commitment to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.
But a unification engineered by outside parties is bound to meet with failure. Any organization constructed in a top-heavy way will not be strong. It will carry too much stress at the top. It would also be in contradiction with the right to assemble as guaranteed with the 1945 Constitution. Let pluralism flourish in the organization and let it generate sound competition.
This does not mean, however, that unification is not important. But it should come from the members themselves. When the time comes that foreign attorneys make an inroad into the country, or the time when technology makes it possible for lawyers to conduct their professional services electronically, the need for unification will be imperative.
Finally, Ikadin is a professional organization, not a mass organization. Ikadin is not under the aegis of the political parties. Hence, Ikadin should be able to, and should, retain the right to lead its members professionally. Meaning it is time that the government stop intervening in the profession.
The writer is a noted human rights activist and a Jakarta- based corporate lawyer.