Mas Achmad Santosa

Mas Achmad Santosa
and Nenad Bago
Jakarta

Abdul Rachman Saleh was sworn in as attorney general in
October, raising hopes that the efficient defense of public
interests would be realized through an ethical and professional
Attorney General's Office.

The high expectations placed on the new attorney general are
based on two well-founded presumptions: That the newly founded
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) will not be able to
eradicate corruption single-handedly; and that Abdul Rachman
Saleh is a man with a clean track record and proven integrity,
who can defend public interests through an independent and
impartial Attorney General's Office.

The new attorney general gained a reputation as a man of
integrity during his time as head of the Jakarta Legal Aid Office
(one of the oldest and most respected legal aid offices in
Indonesia) and as the Supreme Court's junior chief justice for
supervision. However, what has won him popular support, and
boosted his image more than anything else, is the fact that Abdul
Rachman was the only judge on the Supreme Court panel who refused
to overturn the decision of the State Court and the High Court,
which found former House of Representatives speaker Akbar
Tandjung guilty of misusing over US$4 million in state funds
allocated to feed the poor.

Nevertheless, from the outset there were doubts that the new
attorney general would succeed in improving the performance of
his office. Such doubts are mostly supported by the reasoning
that the majority of prosecutors within the Attorney General's
Office have been -- and are -- enjoying large benefits from the
existing situation, and that they will strongly resist any
initiatives that could lead to reform.

On the other hand, many predict that Abdurrahman will succeed
and efficiently confront the challenges of the eradication of
corruption, both within his office and throughout the country.
These predictions are based on President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono's full support of him. Moreover, both the President and
the attorney general are exposed to unprecedented and continuous
domestic and international pressure to boost anticorruption and
governance reform efforts.

Although the attorney general's strategy choices for reform
are numerous, it seems that the introduction of the following
reform actions within his office should be prioritized:

* The nomination for appointment (to the President) of a vice-
attorney general, who would support reform efforts within the
office;

* The establishment of two task forces: One tasked with the
execution and monitoring of the institutional reform agenda as
agreed during the Law Summit III, and the second assisting deputy
attorney general for special crimes (JAMPIDSUS) to reopen the
investigation, prosecution or review of those prosecution cases
that are not being processed in an efficient manner, or that have
ended in an order to stop investigation (SP3).

In his efforts to reform the prosecution from within, the
attorney general would be well-advised to reach for assistance
from groups outside the prosecution service: Members of the House
-- particularly members of Commission III dealing with law-
related matters -- can provide crucial political support; civil
society organizations can offer valuable experience in the fields
of legal reform and anticorruption efforts; members of reformist
academic circles can both offer expertise and generate further
public support of the reform.

Supervision of the performance of prosecutors is also a
crucial element of the successful reform of the public
prosecution. Presently, the legal framework provides an internal
control supervision mechanism in the form of the Public
Prosecutor's Honor Council (Jamwas), which has proven to be
inadequate in dealing with disciplinary and ethical offenses
within the public prosecution service in an efficient manner.

This inadequacy has prompted the need for the establishment of
an external control mechanism, preferably in the form of a Public
Prosecution Service Commission. Abdul Rachman has announced that
he will soon present the names of candidates for membership and
the structure of the planned commission to the President.

The idea for its establishment is based on Article 38 of Law
16/2004, which empowers the President to establish a commission
to enhance the performance of the prosecution service.

The Partnership for Governance Reform recently organized a
seminar on the establishment of the commission. During the
seminar, the Partnership proposed a model for the commission
comprising advisory (internal management), supervisory
(performance) and disciplinary (performance and ethical behavior)
powers over the prosecution service and its members.

This model is the result of the analysis of the comparative
study of the roles and status of the Public Prosecution of 31
countries, as well as a comparative study of the structure and
competence of eight judicial/prosecutorial commissions worldwide.
As expected, reactions to the proposed model were adverse,
ranging from support to strong opposition.

However, it is clear that if the purpose of this commission is
to improve the performance of the prosecutorial service, then its
competence should surely go beyond an advisory role on an ad hoc
basis. The primary criteria of measuring the prosecution's
performance should be the impartiality, integrity and ethical
behavior of prosecutors.

Clearly, the process of the establishment of the new
commission will require the cooperation of the President, the
legislature and the attorney general. The selection process of
the members of the new commission is a crucial first step in
order to ensure that its members have clean track records,
integrity and the necessary expertise.

The writer are advisors for the Legal and Judicial Reform
Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia.