Overhaul suggested to save judiciary
By Satjipto Rahardjo
SEMARANG (JP): Sarwata's first statement after being inaugurated as chief justice of the Supreme Court was that the institution had to be put in order. He did not elaborate.
Whatever plan the chief justice has in mind, one thing must be made clear: the Supreme Court can no longer ignore public opinion and criticism. The public often criticizes the Supreme Court, but the criticism would not be so harsh were nothing wrong with the legal system.
Criticism has also come from within. More than five years ago, Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto himself criticized the Supreme Court. At that time, an employee in the court's delivery unit was caught trying to sell a court verdict document in a hotel. When reporters asked how that could have happened, Andojo pointed to loopholes in the court's decision-making process.
The same justice recently tried to crack down on what he called collusion within the Supreme Court. Following the accusation, then Chief Justice Soerjono suggested in a letter to the President that Andojo be dismissed from his post. The President, however, never acted on the suggestion.
Another critic, Judge Asikin Kusumah Atmadja, has shockingly stated that 50 percent of the country's judges are "bad". Stories like these will surely hurt honest judges and dedicated court employees. An independent investigation may be the only way to find out if these allegations are true.
It will not be easy to overhaul the country's courts. But regardless of the good intentions, if the task is not carried out objectively, the results are likely to be disappointing. Past Supreme Court investigations have disappointed the public, which felt that the court was not completely forthcoming in its findings.
The judicial process is complex and all aspects of the trial process need to be analyzed. Court personnel are too busy with their case loads to conduct such an investigation. And with thousands of cases piling up at the Supreme Court, how could the justices possibly find time to research ways of correcting the system.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court should cooperate with bonafide research centers, like the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), and university research centers. These institutions could give immediate feedback to a restless public.
Arrogance and turning a deaf ear to the criticism will only lower the public's respect for the Supreme Court and other legal bodies.
Once we had the late Moedjono, a chief justice who promptly answered every letter addressed to the Supreme Court. His simple and pleasant concern was an indication that the Supreme Court appreciated public opinion. A similar approach could help alleviate public dissatisfaction with what the courts have done so far.
The writer is a legal sociologist at the University of Diponegoro in Semarang, Central Java.