New system an additional headache for court

New system an additional headache for court

The country's highest judicial body, the Supreme Court, has
been given more power with the March 31 transfer to the court of
administrative and financial powers formerly belonging to the
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, along with the
implementation of Law No. 4/2004 on judicial power and Law No.
5/2004 on the Supreme Court. These changes are expected to result
in an independent judiciary that will eventually repair the great
damage that has been done to its image. The Jakarta Post
contributor T. Sima Gunawan spoke with lawyer Luhut Pangaribuan,
chairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights
Association, about these changes. The following is an excerpt of
the interview.

Question: How do you see this new system?

Answer: It will give the Supreme Court a hard time. The
Supreme Court so far has not been able to solve its own problems,
so these new powers will put it into more trouble. Take the
backlog of some 20,000 cases at the Supreme Court, for example.
Don't just look at the number, but think about the consequences.

What are the consequences?

Due to the backlog, people have to wait a long time before the
Supreme Court hears their case. And this has resulted in
corruption. People have to pay in order to get information about
their case; for example, information about whether their case has
been registered or whether the Supreme Court has appointed
justices to hear the case.

The Supreme Court fails to provide good public services.
People do not know how long they will have to wait until the
justices reach a decision in their case. There is no standard
time. It may take years, maybe more than five years.

Are you saying there is no legal certainty?

Yes. There is a disparity. For example, one case can be
immediately executed, but there are others that cannot.

That is only about administrative matters. You have not
discussed the court's decisions themselves.

This is another concern. Judges often have different
interpretations of the same laws. The Supreme Court of the
Republic of Indonesia should have the same interpretation of laws
so that there are not different verdicts for similar cases, for
example, in corruption cases or other violations of the law, even
though dissenting opinions are allowed.

How is it possible for justices to have different
interpretations of the same laws?

There are two things. First, there is no intellectual process
or group discussion at the Supreme Court, so they cannot have the
same vision about the development of the law.

Second, there is the intervention of money. The new system is
expected to make the Supreme Court independent from government
intervention, but not from the intervention of money.

But the idea of a single judicial system was introduced by the
Central Java branch of the Indonesian Judges Association in 1966,
and many parties have voiced support for the idea.

The idea has been implemented without preparation; this is a
reactive move. Look at what is happening now. We don't rely on
any system (in the Supreme Court), but on the people. There is,
in fact, no system (of monitoring) the Supreme Court.

Corruption in the Supreme Court is not new. Is there any way
to deal with this?

Anyone can appeal to the Supreme Court, regardless of the
nature of their case. The Supreme Court should become selective
in accepting cases. They should deal with laws only, not facts.
They should only decide cases that will later become part of
jurisprudence.

Could you give an example?

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court issued a decision saying that
both Batak men and women have an equal right to inheritance.
According to Batak customary law, only the men had the right to
inheritance. The Supreme Court's decision became jurisprudence
and was used in similar cases, not only among the Bataks but also
other ethnic groups.

If the Supreme Court accepts any and all cases, even if they
increase the number of justices (from 51) to 60, as mentioned in
the new law, or even up to 100, this will not solve the problem.

The United States only has nine Supreme Court justices. Sweden
also has a small number of justices, but they are doing well
because they only deal with laws.

In the meantime, what can be done to eliminate corruption in
the Supreme Court?

I wish they (Supreme Court justices) were angels --
immaculate, a great deal of integrity, and the intention to do
good things. Everything should start from themselves.

What about the role of lawyers, who often offer bribes to the
justices?

It is true, many lawyers bribe judges. But it depends on the
judges to accept or refuse the bribes. A new law on the
establishment of a judicial commission is being drafted. The
commission will select candidates for the Supreme Court and then
supervise them, but currently no body controls the court. So
everything depends on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court performed its role better in the 1950s and
1960s. So, how did it get to this?

We used to have a better government. The current situation is
also the result of the political process, which produced rulers
but not leaders.

Things will improve if we get political leaders like Mahatma
Gandhi, Lee Kuan Yew or Mahathir Mohamad. They were clean,
capable and were supported by the people.

It is not easy to find a person of such character, but I
believe there are people like that out there.

Unfortunately, none of our presidential candidates are like
that.