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)