Sat, 24 Sep 2005

Supreme Court delays Judicial Commission's recommendations

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The Supreme Court will not immediately respond to the recommendations of the Judicial Commission to give administrative sanctions to the judges of the West Java High Court who issued a controversial ruling in relation to the Depok mayoral election dispute.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir Manan said on Friday that the Supreme Court would focus on examining the High Court's ruling as part of a judicial review filed by the Depok General Elections Commission (KPUD Depok).

"The core of the problem is in the judicial review. We don't want to see the Judicial Commission's recommendations affecting our decision over the judicial review. We'll prioritize the judicial review, then solve other problems later," Bagir told reporters.

The Judicial Commission, which was set up recently to oversee the performance of the judges in the country and can recommend sanctions against errant judges, issued last week recommendations that included a one-year suspension for the chief judge of the West Java High Court, Nana Juwana, and reprimand letters for the four other judges after they issued a controversial ruling in settling the Depok mayoral election dispute. This is the first case handled by the Judicial Commission.

The judges last month annulled the victory of Prosperous Justice Party candidate Nur Mahmudi Ismail in the June 26 Depok mayoral election, and instead declared Golkar Party candidate Badrul Kamal as the winner.

The ruling has sparked anger among PKS supporters, and prompted the KPUD Depok to file a judicial review of the ruling.

The Judicial Commission said the West Java High Court judges committed "unprofessional conduct" in settling the election dispute, and recommended administrative sanctions for the judges.

It is now up to the Supreme Court whether to follow through on the recommendations or not.

Bagir said that the Supreme Court would carry out the recommendations of the Judicial Commission as long as it did not threaten freedom of judges to make decisions.