Ombudsman commission faces budget constraints, criticism

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.