Presumption of guilt

The government has taken a bold initiative in its antigraft campaign by proposing a law that requires a person accused of corruption to prove his innocence, instead of having state prosecutors prove his guilt. This is a radical departure from the current practice of sticking to the sacred principle that a person is innocent until proven otherwise.

If the government has its way, a mere suggestion or indication of corruption could land a person in court. He would have to prove that he acquired his wealth by legitimate means. If he cannot give satisfactory proof, that could be sufficient grounds for the court to convict him of corruption.

We could all probably come up with names of people whom we believe have been engaged in corrupt practices simply by comparing their estimated salary and their lifestyle. While that would not necessarily be sufficient to gain a conviction, it would be good enough to start a hearing. The onus would then be on them to prove that they are not corrupt. Many in the civil service, who are among the lowest paid profession in the country, would rank high among the chief suspects. How else could they explain their wealth, including their ownership of houses in elite suburbs and of luxury cars?

The government's rationale for introducing this measure is that it could significantly speed up its efforts to send big time corruptors to jail. President Abdurrahman Wahid has been under a lot of pressure lately to live up to his promise to nab corruptors. For all his tough talk about eradicating corruption, so far he has only a handful of court convictions to show for it.

There has never been a shortage of publicity of high profile investigations conducted by Attorney General Marzuki Darusman. But only a few of these cases have reached court, and even fewer have ended with a favorable ruling for the prosecutors. Having raised public expectations through many of its promises, the government has fallen short on delivery.

The problem, as both Marzuki and Abdurrahman are only now admitting, is that they rarely have sufficient solid evidence to build their case that would ensure a court verdict. There is always at least two parties involved in corruption -- the giver and the taker. As long as both remain silent, the government has virtually nothing on either person. By shifting the burden of proof to the accused, the government hopes to improve its performance.

The government's excuse for its sorry performance on the corruption front, however, is unacceptable. Corruption has become so pervasive in this country that it is simply hard to believe that the police and state prosecutors have rarely come up with the necessary evidence to send the culprits to jail. Rather, the real problem seems to be the lack of political will on the part of the government to seriously eradicate corruption.

While present day leaders may be clean from corrupt practices, it is likely that they have close relatives or friends involved in corruption one way or another, either in the past or the present. Corruption, big and small, has been tolerated so often for so long in this country that it has become a way of life for many people. The line between right and wrong has become blurred. Present day leaders, while talking tough about wiping out corruption, would likely turn a blind eye to corruption practiced by people within their own circles.

This is a major downside of the government's proposal to place the burden of proof on the accused: that the system could be open to manipulation for political purposes. If approved by the House of Representatives, the proposal could become another Draconian law to intimidate opponents and critics of the government.

The government's proposal may seem radical, but don't expect results just yet. Having been let down too many times by both President Abdurrahman and Attorney General Marzuki, the public has the right to be skeptical. It looks more like another ploy by the administration to shirk its responsibility or to shift the blame, for its own failure to live up to its promises, on others. As radical as the idea to shift the burden of proof in the fight against corruption may sound, it will soon become a mere novelty as long as there is no political will.