Still hope for justice
Still hope for justice
More than a week has passed since the Padang District Court
sentenced 43 members of West Sumatra's 55-strong provincial
legislature to prison for corruption, besides ordering the guilty
legislators to return the embezzled money in full and pay more
than a Rp 100 hundred million each in fines. The case involved
the embezzlement of insurance premiums, housing allowances,
cellular phone credits and other allowances allocated to council
members in the 2002 budget.
In terms of the amount of misappropriated money, this case may
not be as spectacular as other corruption cases that have been
exposed by the media over the years involving trillions. Judges
hearing the trial have put this amount at Rp 6.4 billion, while
prosecutors said "only" Rp 5.9 million had been misappropriated.
Instead, it is the judiciary's daring to act with apparent
impartiality and against so many in such a high-profile case that
has drawn the public's attention.
Naturally, the public has been waiting to see how the case
would develop -- especially since prosecutors in the West Java
port city of Cirebon had similarly named all 30 members of its
city council as graft suspects. Concurrently, other graft cases
in regions across the country are in various stages of judicial
processes or investigations.
By any standard, however, the Padang and Cirebon cases can be
considered landmark cases, the one main difference being that
while the Cirebon case is still being investigated, in Padang, a
verdict has been handed down, even though all 43 defendants
remain free pending their appeal to a higher court.
Whatever the final verdict, however, the local district
court's decision marks the first time that an Indonesian
judiciary has mustered the courage -- or impartiality -- to
penalize almost an entire legislature and render it obsolete.
Obviously, the political and social consequences that such
judicial impartiality may bring to this country, if upheld, would
be considerable. Hopefully, the Padang verdict can serve as a
timely warning to legislators elected during the recent general
elections.
Meanwhile, West Sumatra High Court president Sumbar Mohammad
Bahaudin Qadry is reported to have assured the public that he
will prioritize the case, especially because the crime was
committed by the legislative leadership in collusion with
members.
No less important a lesson provided by the Padang case is the
significance of honest people speaking out against graft and
corruption. This particular case, for example, came to the
attention of the public -- and law enforcers -- after one irate
West Sumatra legislator publicly complained about his colleagues'
dishonesty. His outcry prompted a local civic organization to
pressure the provincial prosecutor's office to investigate, and
thus the judicial process was set in motion.
It is worth stressing, once again, that the fight against
corruption is everybody's business, and is not one that can be
left to the discretion of law enforcers and the judiciary alone.
The more the public is encouraged to speak out against these
blatant acts of injustice, the greater the chance that the
appropriate arms of the law will react and the fight will be won.