Needed: An attorney General of high candor

Needed: An attorney General of high candor

The wealth report that Attorney General M.A. Rachman filed with
the Public Servants Wealth Audit Commission (KPKPN) reportedly
contained discrepancies, giving rise to allegations of
corruption. According to the audit commission, Rachman should
resign or be forced from his position because of his alleged
dishonesty. Chairman of Ombudsman Commission Anton Suyata, who is
also former deputy attorney general for special crimes, discussed
the matter and related issues with The Jakarta Post's Soeryo
Winoto.

Question: What do you think about the case involving Attorney
General M.A. Rachman, from a legal point of view?

Answer: First, I would say there is an obligation for state
officials to report their wealth and they must be willing to have
their wealth investigated, based on Law No. 28/1999 and People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decree No. XXI/1998 on clean
governance. Second, (you have to ask) have the state officials
abided by the rules? (If not), then the sanctions. Any state
executive found violating Law No. 28 and MPR Decree No. XXI are
subject to administrative sanctions based on Government
Regulation (on public servants) No. 30/1980. Those filing false
reports on their wealth are subject to punishment based on the
Criminal Code.

And from a moral point of view?

The above (legal) sanctions must be morally proper. Legal
sanctions have a clear yardstick, but not so for morality.

Unfortunately in Indonesia many people fail to respect moral
properness, taking it for granted. Other countries like Japan,
Korea and India respect properness better than us in Indonesia.

Does Rachman's case reflect the true situation in the Attorney
General's Office?

I don't think so. There are 15,000 people working in
prosecutor's offices (including the Attorney General's Office)
around the country. Some 6,500 of whom are prosecutors, and not
all of them are dirty. It is absolutely correct that the top
people at prosecutor's offices must always set a good examples
for his or her subordinates. Pak Rachman's case is an individual
affair. But it (the case) does affect the Attorney General's
Office, which should represent the supremacy of the law.

Pak A.M. Ghalib, the former attorney general, was allegedly
involved in graft, and many prosecutors are reportedly involved
in what people call the mafia of justice. Can you say what is
really going on with our prosecutors?

I just read a report yesterday that Indonesia is one of the 27
most corrupt countries in the world. That means that it is not
only the prosecutors who are corrupt. Maybe prosecutor's offices
just represent other institutions.

So, you would say that the true situation in Indonesia is
worse than just this case?

Yes, it is. Rampant corruption in the country is committed by
officials based on their grade or ranks. If a neighborhood chief
steals 26, the official at the subdistrict head's office will
take 62. There is always a multiplication in the amount of money
swindled, based on the grade or level of the corrupt official.

And this happens everywhere at any time. Corruption is
blatantly committed here. We find it difficult to distinguish
between policy and criminal activity. The Bulog case, which
involves (House Speaker Akbar Tandjung), is the clearest example
of this. Those (officials) who steal small amounts of money are
called criminals, but when it reaches the top officials the
offenses are said to have been carried out in line with (state)
policy.

If the Attorney General's Office, the courts and the police
have lost their credibility, then where can people turn for
justice? And how can the institutions, the Attorney General's
Office in this case, mend their images?

There must be short-term and long-term plans.

The short-term action is to replace unscrupulous officials who
have key positions with those who are more qualified and more
credible. The new officials must be given certain targets and
objectives. The long-term plan is to open (institutions) to
public supervision.

This means giving people access to monitor what the
(government) officials are doing and have done. We should have an
integrated criminal justice system. But so far what we have is a
disintegrated system. The law enforcement institutions work in
their own ways for their own interests.

The system must be put on the right track. And there must be
some supervision to enable the system to run smoothly, with clear
objectives.

Therefore, an integrated control system is a must to give the
public access to allow them to monitor the law enforcers.

How would such a system work?

Law enforcers at every level would be obliged to fill out
progress reports on what they are doing, maybe through a website
or some other medium that makes it easy for the people to access.

At the regency or mayoralty level, the reports could be filed
once a month, at the provincial level the reports could be filed
once every three months, and at the national level (the ministry
level) the reports could be submitted twice a year.

Once again, the people must be given access to the reports. I
introduced all of these ideas two years ago at a meeting of the
National Law Commission organized by the University of Indonesia.
I have also written a book on this and I hope that the Attorney
General's Office will take it into consideration.

Do you believe that law enforcers, including the prosecutor's
offices, will act on your proposals or advice?

The question is do they want to hear what I say? How can they
respond to my advice if they don't hear it?

If Attorney General A.M. Rachman steps down, who do you think
is the best candidate to succeed him? Many people have suggested
a non-career prosecutor, someone from outside the prosecutor's
office. What do you think?

In the history of the Republic, most of the attorney generals
have not been career prosecutors, people like Ali Said, Ismail
Saleh, Pak Singgih and Pak Andi Ghalib. There is no difference
whether the new attorney general is a career or a non-career
prosecutor. The most important thing is that he or she must have
a great deal of credibility, and they must have a vision of the
Attorney General's Office's main mission.