Supreme Court criticized for lack of transparency
Supreme Court criticized for lack of transparency
JAKARTA (JP): A watchdog criticized the Supreme Court on
Sunday for lacking consistency and transparency in its decision
to annul a government regulation on the establishment of the
Joint Anti-Corruption Team (TPGTKP), which was trying to
prosecute corrupt judges.
The Indonesian Institute for an Independent Judiciary also
faulted the court for presenting its judicial review in
handwritten form, which is technically improper.
Rifqi S. Assegaf of the institute said the Supreme Court's
decision had sparked controversy.
"There have been negative comments that the Supreme Court made
the decision because if felt threatened by TPGTKP, which was
committed to prioritizing the efforts to combat the practice of
corruption, collusion and nepotism in the Supreme Court," Rifqi
said in a statement.
Paulus E. Lotulung, the deputy chief justice for
administration, said on Friday that on March 23 the Supreme Court
annulled Government Regulation No. 19/2000 on the establishment
of the anticorruption team because it contradicted Law No.
31/1999 on corruption.
Rifqi also said Law No. 14/1970 on Basic Judicial Power and
Law No. 14/1985 on Supreme Court state that a court decision is
legal if it is presented to the public.
Symbolically, before the Supreme Court deputy chief justice
read out the controversial decision, he declared the session was
open to the public.
"But how could people attend the session if they did not know
when the decision would be presented?" Rifqi asked.
He also questioned why the decision was read out before it had
been typed out, hinting at the possibility of a "dirty game"
behind the issuance of the decision.
"The Supreme Court has to change its habits in the management
of cases by making a calendar of the presentation of its
decisions that can be easily accessed by the public," Rifqi said.
He said the court was not consistent with this latest decision
because it had recently ruled in favor of Government Regulation
No. 17/1999 on the establishment of the Indonesian Bank
Restructuring Agency, even though that regulation contradicted
existing law.
The court did not annul that regulation because at the time
the state was in an economic crisis and the agency was badly
needed, he said.
Rifqi said the existence of the anticorruption team, which was
set up seven months ago, should be seen as vital, particularly
now when the people do not trust the police and prosecutors'
offices.
Former Supreme Court deputy justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto
resigned last month as the head of the anticorruption team
because he doubted the political will to combat corruption.
Last year, Adi announced his plan to prosecute Supreme Court
justices who allegedly took bribes. The justices, however sued
him, and a district court ruled against him, saying that only
prosecutors, and not the team anticorruption team, could
prosecute justices.
Rifqi said the government regulation annulled by the Supreme
Court authorized the anticorruption team to coordinate the
investigation and prosecution of corruption cases that are
difficult to prove. While the law says the attorney general has
this authority, the regulation does not contradict the law
because it stipulates that the attorney general is the
coordinator of the anticorruption team.
The regulation also authorized the team to issue a letter to
stop an investigation if there was insufficient evidence. But
again, it says the issuance of the letter must be approved by the
attorney general, according to Rifqi.
Rifqi added that a decree issued by the People's Consultative
Assembly, which has more authority than the law, contained strong
rules about a clean government free from corruption, collusion
and nepotism.
"The establishment of TPGTPK as the seed of the Anti-
Corruption Commission (as stipulated in Article 43 of Law No.
31/1999) clearly was important," he said. (sim)