Supreme Court director claims judiciary works well

Ridwan Max Sijabat, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The Supreme Court appears to be turning a blind eye to corruption allegations in the judiciary, playing down the controversial sentences recently handed down to wealthy criminals, including murderer Adiguna Sutowo, by the district courts.

Supreme Court director of law and judiciary affairs Suparno admitted there had been questionable verdicts recently but claimed the court system in current reform era was improving as the national anticorruption drive got into gear.

The Supreme Court's own most recent verdict, the sudden and inexplicable slashing on Friday of convicted murderer Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra's 15-year sentence to 10 years for the murder of a high court judge, has also been slammed by legal activists and lawyers.

While some of the verdicts might seem disproportionate to the crimes, the judges' rulings and their independence should be respected, Suparno said.

"The Supreme Court cannot interfere in the trials of cases and in the decision-making process. It has to respect judges' independence in trying all cases and making verdicts," he told The Jakarta Post last week.

Suparno said the Supreme Court judges could understand the public frustration and strong reaction to such controversial court verdicts as the acquittal of businessman and Golkar Party member Nurdin Halid on corruption charges and the imposition of a light seven-year sentence on bartender murderer Adiguna.

Nurdin, who is also chairman of the Indonesian Distribution Cooperatives (KDI), was cleared by the South Jakarta District Court on a charge of misusing Rp 169.7 billion (US17.6 million) in public money meant for the poor, after the panel of judges said they did not find him guilty of violating the law.

Prosecutors had asked that Nurdin, charged with misusing aid for the distribution of cooking oil to the poor from the National Logistics Agency (Bulog) in 1998, be sentenced to 20 years in prison, fined Rp 30 million (US$3,157) and return the embezzled money.

Meanwhile, Adiguna, who faced a possible life sentence for shooting dead a bartender at the Hilton Hotel and the maximum death penalty for owning an illegal weapon, got only seven years in jail.

Both Nurdin and Adiguna were tried at the South Jakarta District Court, which is known for its notorious record of acquitting big-time suspects or giving them lenient sentences.

Suparno said judges had their own reasons and legal considerations for acquitting Nurdin and giving Adiguna a lighter sentence than the prosecutors demanded.

"If the court verdicts are considered to have undermined the public's sense of justice, prosecutors have the right to appeal to the higher court and to the Supreme Court," he said.

However, appealing cases often seems to benefit the defendants rather than the state. Along with its most recent controversial decision on Tommy, the Supreme Court earlier drew harsh criticism for its decision to overturn the three-year jail term of former minister/state secretary and then-Golkar Party leader Akbar Tandjung. He had been jailed by the Central Jakarta District Court for his involvement in embezzling Rp 40 billion from Bulog.

Suparno claimed, however, that the judiciary system had improved since the Supreme Court had intensified its role in supervising lower courts handling high-profile cases.

It would also soon task a special team to take action against judges found violating ethical and legal codes, he said.

"Besides improving the supervisory function, the Supreme Court also carries out regular meetings with all judges to increase cooperation between judges and their professionalism," Suparno said.

He claimed that the Supreme Court listened to public complaints about the judiciary system, which judges and lawyers have openly admitted is riddled with graft.

Most recently, Tengku Syaifuddin Popon, a lawyer acting for suspended Aceh governor and graft convict Abdullah Puteh, was caught allegedly paying Rp 250 million in bribes to a Jakarta High Court clerk in an apparent attempt to influence Puteh's appeal.

Puteh is fighting a 10-year jail term handed down to him by the Anticorruption Court for graft in the 2001 purchase of a Russian-made MI helicopter.