Supreme Court teams ill-suited for investigation
YOGYAKARTA (JP): The Supreme Court should not be allowed to use internal bodies to investigate charges that a group of Supreme Court justices took bribes from a businessman on trial for falsifying property documents, a legal expert said over the weekend.
Yusril Ihza Mahendra, a constitutional law expert, said that the two internal Supreme Court teams do not have the capacity to investigate the allegations that the judges accepted Rp 1.4 billion ($600,000) to acquit Indian-born businessman Ram Gulumal of fraud charges.
"The Honorary Council and the Special Team are chaired by senior judges. If a senior judge is involved in some form of deviation who has the authority to probe him?" asked Yusril.
The charges of collusion came to light in a recent edition of Forum Keadilan, the biweekly magazine that published a "secret" letter from Deputy Chief Justice for General Crimes Adi Andojo Soetjipto to the Jakarta Prosecutor's office.
In the letter, Adi asked the Prosecutor's Office to review the Supreme Court's decision acquitting Gulumal of all charges of illegal land procurement for the construction of the Gandhi Memorial International School in Jakarta.
Early last month, the Supreme Court set up its Special Team, whose investigation is to be led by Deputy Chief Justice Sarwata. The Honorary Council is a long-time Supreme Court institution which consists mostly of prominent retired judges. The judge heading up the Council's investigation has yet to be named.
Speaking after a seminar at Atmajaya University in Yogyakarta, Yusril said that instead of the Supreme Court setting up a special team, it should hand over the case to the Prosecutor's Office.
He added that if the suspected judges are still active they should be given temporary leave.
Strange procedures
Yusril, who also teaches at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, said that the Supreme Court as a judicial institution should be independent of the executive branch.
"It is a strange procedure that the Special Team has to report its findings to the President," Yusril said, adding that Supreme Court appointments generally have to approved by the President.
"For example, the House originally proposed the appointments of Judges Jaelani and Adi Andojo for the position of chief justice. They were rejected by the President, who only approved of Soerjono," Yusril said, referring to the Supreme Court's current chief justice.
He added that, in fact, it is the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) that is the country's highest law-making body. Only the MPR has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, not the President, he said, adding that any policies involving the Supreme Court are supposed to be reported to the MPR.(02/16)