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)