Payoffs prominent in court system

Payoffs prominent in court system

By Fabiola Desy Unidjaja

JAKARTA (JP): Many cite law enforcement as the key to
structuring a better way of life in Indonesia.

But Indonesia's judicial system, one of the backbones of law
enforcement, has yet to show any signs of change.

Too often people claim that money, not the law, is the
determining factor in legal decisions.

Testimony by several lawyers also indicates that the practice
is far too easy to conduct, particularly in civil cases.

Supreme Court Secretary-General Pranowo concedes that such
corruption has infected all levels of the judicial system, even
up to the country's highest court.

"I don't close my eyes to the fact that 'numerous' judges are
engaged in the practice. But for me 'numerous' can mean many or
just a few of them," Pranowo told The Jakarta Post earlier this
week.

Preliminary research by Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW)
claims that only five of 41 supreme justices in the Supreme Court
cannot be bought, while the rest have questionable integrity.

Lawyer Juan Felix Tampubolon told the Post that such practices
were real and lawyers could easily sense it in certain cases.

"I'm sure that it (bribes) exists, I don't have any doubt
about that. But I still believe there are some judges with
integrity," Tampubolon remarked.

But Tampubolon, who is legal council to former president
Soeharto, says he has never personally bribed a judge.

"I do give the judges presents or tokens during Idul Fitri or
New Year, but not concerning a case," he said.

But several young lawyers, who spoke on condition of
anonymity, admitted to the Post that bribery was very much a part
of their everyday procedures in making legal arguments in court.

They discounted popular terms such as a "court mafia", saying
that the process was really very simple.

One lawyer recounted how in 1997 he paid off a judge with Rp 1
billion when representing a business tycoon who was involved in a
trillion rupiah bank scam with a private bank.

"I remember carrying the suitcase containing all the money. I
also handed over it to the judge himself," the lawyer said
earlier last week.

The fate of the case that made news headlines that year
remains suspended and largely forgotten by the public.

The businessman still runs his multinational company, while
the private bank has been liquidated.

Another lawyer said that from his experience at the Jakarta
provincial court, judges would not even look at your case if you
could not come up with at least Rp 75 million.

"Once you mention the amount they will process your case," he
said.

"You must pay everything in cash and hand it over before the
verdict is read out. This way they can't trace the payoff, until
maybe one of us comes forward," he remarked.

But how does one know which judges to bribe?

Another lawyer said that he only had to casually spend some
time talking with people in the courthouse.

"Just ask around inside the building and you will know. It's
very simple, there's nothing special about it," he said.

"It's just like (paying off someone) when you are trying to
get a driver's license or an identity card," he said.

He said a lawyer only had to walk up to the judge and say the
magic words: "So how can you help the case sir; we are ready to
support it with some substantial funds," he said, adding that the
transaction would automatically occur later.

"And don't forget to mention the amount," he said.

He pointed out that as a general guideline for a civil case
involving Rp 10 billion, an amount less than Rp 200 million was
never mentioned.

He estimated that for "big cases", such as when a district
court threw out an indictment earlier this month against a
businessman who was involved in another well-known bank scandal,
"the pay-off is more than Rp 2 billion."

But far from bemoaning the practice, these lawyers seem to
perceive it as fair game in the legal field. And if there is such
a thing as honor in bribery, they say that judges never betray
you by taking money from both sides.

"They only take money from one side and once they receive the
money they will never let you down, no matter how impossible the
case may seem," the lawyer said.

"It's first come first served."

Salaries

While there is no excuse for such practices, legal
practitioners point to the fact that judges in the past were
severely underpaid and overworked.

Pranowo said judges had received a 100 percent hike in their
salaries.

A judge now takes home about Rp 3 million a month, while a
supreme justice receives about Rp 10 million.

Another problem is the lack of a formal external watchdog.

The Supreme Court is the only monitoring body for all judges
in the country. "We have the right to examine their verdicts, but
only if we receive public complaints," he added.

A backlog of cases also compels many with money to bribe their
way through a fast track legal process.

For example, the Supreme Court receives about 7,500 cases
annually, in addition to the some 12,000 cases still pending.

"With that amount, we have to finish about 40 cases each day
and we only have 17 teams of supreme justices," Pranowo said.

"If we pay the judges off, the cases will resolve sooner," one
lawyer remarked.

One solution being looked at is the establishment of an
independent commission consisting of legal experts and former
judges to review questionable verdicts.

"But we need the public to report their complaints before the
commission can conduct an investigation," Pranowo said.

To reduce the amount of cases at the Supreme Court, Pranowo
proposed certain requirements before a case was brought to the
nation's highest court.

ICW has similarly proposed that only criminal cases which
sanction at least a five-year jail sentence or civil cases
involving a dispute in the amount of over Rp 100 million be
brought before the Supreme Court.

Apart from higher salaries, ICW stresses that transparency is
crucial, particularly in the nomination process.

"Legislators should examine candidates' track record and audit
their assets," ICW coordinator Teten Masduki told the Post.

Legislator Hartono Mardjono of the Crescent Star faction said
while fundamental changes were being made there should be a
clean-out of current judges.

"In the short-term, personnel changes would be an effective
solution," he said without elaborating.

Tampubolon and Pranowo disagreed with such an idea.

"A watchdog system by the House, through hearings, and a fact-
finding team is a good start," Tampubolon said.

"There are thousands of judges and some of them are good and
have integrity. A mass replacement would only sacrifice the good
judges." Pranowo added.(dja)