Reform needed for legal supremacy

Reform needed for legal supremacy

The public has so little trust in the country's legal system
because law enforcement has been marred by corruption, violence
and government intervention. Lawyer Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara
says one way to resolve this situation is to ensure the current
process of amending the 1945 Constitution is free from political
meddling.

Question: How can we promote the supremacy of law so the
people feel their interests are protected by the state?

Answer: The main answer to that question is that our political
leaders, whether they are in the government or not, must keep the
country's legal system and law enforcement institutions
autonomous and free from intervention aimed at meeting short-term
political interests.

Law enforcement must guarantee equality among citizens and
avoid discrimination, privileges and abuses of power. Our law
enforcers, including the police, the Attorney General's Office
and the courts, must be made independent with a strong commitment
to upholding the supremacy of law. The current legal abuses by
both the authorities and political parties have created pessimism
among the people and encouraged large-scale violence.

Q: Where should law enforcement start?

A: Both the authorities and the political parties must first
develop (public) optimism by reaching a consensus for upholding
the law. The 1945 Constitution should then be amended to
accommodate democracy. To amend the Constitution, the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) must assign an independent state
committee, comprising not only politicians but also nonpartisan
constitutional and human rights experts, to draft a new and
comprehensive constitution.

In preparing the draft of the proposed constitution, the
committee should invite public participation.

Q: But the 1945 Constitution is currently being amended by the
MPR...

A: The current amendment process is unfair because the amended
draft is being prepared by an ad hoc committee from the MPR,
whose members are debating for the short-term political interests
of their own parties, while the results of the amendments are to
be used as the legal basis for other laws and regulations.

Q: Then how should we reform our law enforcement institutions?

A: We must make the institutions independent. For the Supreme
Court, two steps must be taken. First, a short-term law should be
introduced to allow for the early retirement of the current
supreme justices and the recruitment of new credible supreme
justices, and to facilitate the establishment of a judicial
committee assigned to supervise the supreme justices.

Second, a new comprehensive law should be introduced to
formulate, among other things, the tasks of the Supreme Court and
to describe the tasks of the justices.

For the police and the Attorney General's Office, the relevant
laws must be revised to stipulate that although their top
officials are responsible to the president, their appointments
must be approved by the House of Representatives (DPR).

Q: Why don't you propose the top officials from the police and
the Attorney General's Office be replaced?

A: Their replacement is not as urgent as the replacement of the
current supreme justices. Because legal cases will eventually
have to go to the Supreme Court, the replacement of corrupt
supreme justices is expected to have a positive impact on law
enforcement. Improvements in the performance of the police and
the Attorney General's Office can be obtained through the
establishment of honorary councils to supervise (these
institutions).

Q: And why don't you propose the replacement of corrupt court
clerks, where the corruption in the courts usually starts?

A: The key factor for the clean operation of the courts is the
credibility of their chiefs, who can fire any of their corrupt
staff members. Furthermore, we cannot start the improvements with
the low-ranking personnel who are not the decisionmakers.

Q: Do you think the establishment of new institutions like the
National Ombudsman Committee will help improve law enforcement?

A: I don't think so because their leaders have no clear vision
and they do not have adequate authority. They will be useful if
their operations are supported by laws and led by hard workers.

Q: Do you see any hurdles to the implementation of your
proposals?

A: The main problem is the fact that our politicians have
forgotten reform and are busy vying for new political positions
and economic resources. The country will thus be unable to
overcome violence, because the leaders have not shown they're
trying to consolidate to solve conflicts.

Q: Do you see any prospects for legal supremacy?

A: If the political elite cannot settle their own conflicts,
don't be surprised if the people lose patience and people-power
movements occur sporadically, thereby delegitimizing the role of
the political elite. The crisis, therefore, may last longer and
the country may experience chaos. (Rikza Abdullah)