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.