Report reveals corruption in court is organized

Report reveals corruption in court is organized

Berni K. Moestafa, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Corruption within the country's judiciary is glaring and well-
organized, involving all players in the legal system, and is
faced by justice seekers at every stage of court procedures, a
survey reveals.

Called Unveiling Court Mafia, the report by the Indonesian
Corruption Watch (ICW) depicts a failing justice system
epitomizing the country's faltering reform movement.

It said money and not justice was the currency in many courts.

"The court mafia is systemic because it (corruption) and the
legal system have almost become intertwined," said the report, a
copy of which The Jakarta Post obtained on Monday. "After years
of letting corruption spread, it has become systemic."

The report added that the chain of corruption in the judiciary
did not stop at the Supreme Court -- the last resort for justice
seekers.

ICW's report comes amid a United Nations (UN) mission looking
into the country's judicial independence.

Last week UN special rapporteur on the independency of judges
and lawyers, Dato Param Cumaraswamy said Indonesia's justice
system was in serious strife, admitting the situation was worse
than expected.

"No matter how small the power of a court official is, it has
the potential of becoming a commodity of corruption," ICW's
report said.

"Court mafia involves all actors ... from the police, court
administrators, lawyers, prosecutors, to judges and prison
guards,"

ICW conducted the study for about a year, conducting
interviews in courts in cities like Jakarta, Medan, Surabaya and
Yogyakarta.

It said that although the ways officials extracted money from
their victims varied in different cities, the patterns were
always the same.

At a criminal court, corruption begins when filing a case with
officials who ask for variable registration fees. Once court
proceedings begin, lawyers can choose favorable judges while most
"lucrative" cases are handled directly led by the district court
chief.

Verdicts are then subject to negotiations either through the
service of the prosecutor or directly with the judges. "If one
does it through prosecutors, it (negotiation) comes in one
package. They will arrange everything from the charges to the
verdict," the report said.

When judges postpone a verdict, it is a signal for a defendant
to see the judge. Judges also ask for "hard work money" in cases
where the defendant faces serious charges.

There is also the "marathon court hearing" where all comes
arranged: witnesses, evidence, judges' questions and defendants'
answers. Sometimes defendants are free to skip their trial
because lawyers have prepared their statements.

A convicted person may also negotiate an appeal with the
higher court, or contact prosecutors to have the court's verdict
delayed.

In a civil court, the pattern is similar with additional fees
such as gratitude money for judges, and the trading of verdicts
where some judges go for the highest bidder.

Corruption at commercial courts follows the same pattern but
may also include fictitious creditors, and the appointment of
favorable court receivers or curators.

At the prosecutors' office, money can speed up or slow down an
investigation, raise or reduce charges, and mean prison or city
arrest.

"Prosecutors ask whether a defendant has enough money and if
so, will extort him to the limit," the report said.

ICW's report follows a string of recent controversial verdicts
and court proceedings casting public doubt over the credibility
of Indonesian courts.

Among the recent cases was the bankruptcy verdict against
Canadian-based insurance firm PT Asuransi Jiwa Manulife Indonesia
(AJMI) -- a company the government declared solvent. The Supreme
Court overturned the verdict earlier this month.

One of the three judges in the Manulife case later admitted to
have received gratitude money in previous cases, but refused to
call it corruption.

ICW chairman Teten Masduki said bribery money had shifted to
the courts as it was harder to buy decisions from government
officials due to the aggressive legislature and more powerful
regional governments.