Overhaul suggested to save judiciary
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.