Sarwata's 5-point plan gets mixed reaction

Sarwata's 5-point plan gets mixed reaction

By Sugianto Tandra

JAKARTA (JP): Legal experts gave mixed reviews over Chief
Justice Sarwata's five-point plan to improve the Supreme Court's
image, but all agreed such a task would be an uphill battle.

Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, a lecturer at the University of
Indonesia, challenged Sarwata to act on his words, saying he
should prove his intention to improve Supreme Court justices'
discipline was not mere lip service.

"It'll take some time to restore the court's image, but I
believe the chief justice can do it if he's really committed,"
she told The Jakarta Post Saturday.

Earlier in a press briefing, Sarwata admitted the Supreme
Court's image had been tarnished by allegations of collusion and
of rulings many experts branded as legally inconsistent.

Sarwata then announced he had formulated a plan to revitalize,
restructure, reorganize, return the court to its original
function, and improve justices' discipline. He did not elaborate.

When contacted for further details of the plan, Supreme Court
Secretary-General Mangatas Nasution refused to comment. He did
say, however, that the chief justice would explain the plan
himself at the end of a three-day national meeting of the court,
opened yesterday in Yogyakarta.

Harkristuti said that by "revitalization," Sarwata might want
to empower the Supreme Court so it produced only quality rulings
which were in agreement with the law and social development. She
mentioned a number of rulings which contradicted such guidelines.

She cited the Supreme Court's contradictory decisions in the
case of land appropriation for the construction of Kedung Ombo
Dam in Central Java, and on the imprisonment of labor leader
Muchtar Pakpahan. "Those decisions left many legal scientists at
sea," she said.

In the first case, then chief justice Purwoto S. Gandasubrata
overturned in 1994 an earlier ruling by justice Asikin Kusumah
Atmadja that favored 34 Central Java residents affected by the
dam's construction.

Asikin had ruled in 1993 that the government had violated the
law by starting construction of the dam in January 1989, which
was before the residents had agreed to the compensation offered.

Late last year, then chief justice Soerjono overturned an
earlier decision made by Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto that
exonerated Pakpahan of charges of inciting labor unrest.

"Sarwata would be considered successful in revitalizing the
court if it were to start producing quality decisions," she said.

In addition, the chief justice could be considered successful
if he managed to improve supervision of the lower courts, as is
the Supreme Court's responsibility.

As for reorganizing, Harkristuti said it would mean the
Supreme Court examining the way it handles cases. She agreed the
justices needed better discipline, and the court needed stronger
campaigns against practices of collusion.

She criticized the court for branding a justice as being
undisciplined for daring to speak of unpleasant truths about the
court.

Skepticism

Professor of law J.E. Sahetapy of the Surabaya-based Airlangga
University separately expressed doubt that Sarwata could restore
the court's image.

"He'll fail and what he planned to do would be useless if he
fails to open the court's real Pandora box," Sahetapy said
Saturday.

He referred to two cases, which some observers believe have
yet to be solved, as examples: the alleged collusion involving
senior justices, and the ruling on Pakpahan.

"Unless he dares to reopen the cases, how can we hope for a
change for the better?" Sahetapy asked.

Another legal expert, Adnan Buyung Nasution, said Sarwata
should be able to convince the government of the supremacy of the
law.

"A free, independent and impartial judiciary should be ensured
according to the rules of the law, the constitution. In addition,
there should be a judiciary that is free from government
meddling," Buyung told the Post.

According to Buyung, the current legal system, which places
judges under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, does
not help in establishing an impartial and independent judiciary.

"If Sarwata could do that (establish a free, independent and
impartial judiciary), then his five-point policy will bear
fruit," he added.