Ombudsman commission faces budget constraints, criticism

Hera Diani, The Jakarta Post/Jakarta

Since its establishment five years ago, the National Ombudsman Commission has experienced many dark moments in their offices, quite literally.

Not only does it have to face ignorant and negligent government bureaucrats and institutions, but its minuscule budget has often made it impossible for the Commission to pay its electricity bills, to the extent that power was cut off.

"We even had to ask the State Electric Company not to cut the electricity permanently," the Commission's head Antonius Sujata told a media conference on Friday.

They have been having trouble in paying telephone bills as well, he added, let alone paying commission members' salaries.

According to Commission member Teten Masduki, who is also chairman of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), the government established the Commission and appointed members in 2000, only to then neglect it.

Members had to struggle to find offices to carry out their programs, with an initial budget of only Rp 500 million (US$52,900) to cover its activities all over the country.

"We've asked for funds from several institutions, like the ministry of finance, but they just demanded bribes," said Teten.

"Finally, the government said they would give us new budget of around Rp 8 billion, but it's not supposed to be disbursed until May. Right now, we rely on loans for our operations. Many programs have had to be delayed until the budget is available."

Aside from its limited budget, the Commission also faces the possibility that it will be dissolved, as detractors consider their performance poor saying that the country does not need another commission.

Comprising 32 members, the Commission's main responsibility is responding to reports or information about irregularities in public services performed by state institutions.

Teten said the poor evaluation of the commission was unfair, as public service in the country was still very poor, and that the Commission could not work on its own, especially with such a limited budget and legal powers.

"True, we have to improve our performance. But the problem is, our recommendations are not legally binding. There are no sanctions whatsoever if an institution decides not to abide by our recommendations," he said.

Over the past five years, for instance, there have been 4,638 cases received by the Commission, but only 12 percent of them have been settled.

There are 1,174 cases in which the relevant institution did not even respond.

The most frequent cases are prolonged legal processes, abuse of power, bribery and corruption.

A high profile case was that reported by Steve Sugita, 64, who is now paralyzed and unable to walk after an expired gas bottle he bought exploded. State institutions blamed one another for the incident, refusing to take responsibility. The case is still going on after three years.

Another problem faced by the commission is a lack of awareness among the public.

A survey held in February by the U.S.-based International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) showed that only 12 percent of the total population are aware of existence of the ombudsman.

Commission deputy head Sunaryati Hartono, a law professor, said that many law graduates and even lawyers do not have the slightest idea about the ombudsman.

"So don't say this country doesn't need an ombudsman commission. Even in developed countries, ombudsman commissions are still needed as an alternative to resolve conflicts outside courts more efficiently.