Observer slams new Supreme Court justices criteria

Observer slams new Supreme Court justices criteria

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The new requirement criteria for Supreme Court judges, which
limits chances for non-career judges, is a setback to the
country's ongoing attempts to develop a clean judiciary, an
observer says.

Asep Rahmat Fajar of the Coalition of Judiciary Observers
(KPP) said on Saturday that few non-judges would be eligible to
sit on the Supreme Court.

"It's a very difficult requirement. The House's decision shows
that they only seek experienced judges, and not those with high
personal integrity," Asep told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.

Legislators deliberating the Supreme Court bill have agreed
that lawyers or law lecturers aspiring to become Supreme Court
judges must have worked for 25 consecutive years in that
profession and possess a master's degree in law studies.

Legislator Sjaiful Rachman of the House's Commission II on
legal and home affairs said on Saturday that lawmakers had
already deliberated articles on the requirements in the Supreme
Court bill.

Since 2000, legislators have opened the door for non-judges to
become Supreme Court judges in a bid to develop a more
independent and clean judiciary.

It is common knowledge that many judges are part of the
judiciary mafia, which has created a corrupt judiciary in the
country.

Lawyers or law lecturers with at least 15 years experience
were allowed to apply to sit on the Supreme Court. In 2003,
however, legislators required non-career Supreme Court judge
candidates to have law diploma, have worked for 15 consecutive
years in the legal field, and have specific expertise in selected
areas.

Meanwhile, legislators have eased requirements for career
judges to become Supreme Court judges. From 2001 through 2003,
the House insisted on using law No. 14/1985, which stipulates
that career judges wishing to become Supreme Court judges must
have worked as judges for 15 years and have led a high court for
five years.

In the Supreme Court bill currently deliberated by the House,
however, legislators have lowered the requirements to 17 years as
judges in any court and three years in a high court, either as
the chief or a member.

Asep said the House must focus on the recruitment process to
net aspirants with high integrity, the most important thing to
clean up the courts.

"The House's purpose of welcoming non-judges into the court
was to gain public trust. Therefore, they must realize that
career judges have an unfavorable reputation among the people. Do
not base the requirements on the length of working experience of
the aspirants," he said.

Sjaiful, however, insisted the new requirements would net more
capable judges.

"We need qualified judges," he said, without elaborating.

Earlier, observers lashed out at the House for failing to set
aside their political interests in the selection of Supreme Court
judges.

The third amendment of the 1945 Constitution in 2001 calls for
the establishment of a Judicial Commission to handle the
recruitment of Supreme Court judges and Constitutional Court
judges. However, the House has yet to finish deliberating the
bill on Judicial Commission.