The new Attorney General: Enduring against long odds

Mas Achmad Santosa and Nenad Bago, Jakarta

Abdul Rachman Saleh was sworn in as attorney general in October, raising hopes that the efficient defense of public interests would be realized through an ethical and professional Attorney General's Office.

The high expectations placed on the new attorney general are based on two well-founded presumptions: That the newly founded Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) will not be able to eradicate corruption single-handedly; and that Abdul Rachman Saleh is a man with a clean track record and proven integrity, who can defend public interests through an independent and impartial Attorney General's Office.

The new attorney general gained a reputation as a man of integrity during his time as head of the Jakarta Legal Aid Office (one of the oldest and most respected legal aid offices in Indonesia) and as the Supreme Court's junior chief justice for supervision. However, what has won him popular support, and boosted his image more than anything else, is the fact that Abdul Rachman was the only judge on the Supreme Court panel who refused to overturn the decision of the State Court and the High Court, which found former House of Representatives speaker Akbar Tandjung guilty of misusing over US$4 million in state funds allocated to feed the poor.

Nevertheless, from the outset there were doubts that the new attorney general would succeed in improving the performance of his office. Such doubts are mostly supported by the reasoning that the majority of prosecutors within the Attorney General's Office have been -- and are -- enjoying large benefits from the existing situation, and that they will strongly resist any initiatives that could lead to reform.

On the other hand, many predict that Abdurrahman will succeed and efficiently confront the challenges of the eradication of corruption, both within his office and throughout the country. These predictions are based on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's full support of him. Moreover, both the President and the attorney general are exposed to unprecedented and continuous domestic and international pressure to boost anticorruption and governance reform efforts.

Although the attorney general's strategy choices for reform are numerous, it seems that the introduction of the following reform actions within his office should be prioritized:

* The nomination for appointment (to the President) of a vice- attorney general, who would support reform efforts within the office;

* The establishment of two task forces: One tasked with the execution and monitoring of the institutional reform agenda as agreed during the Law Summit III, and the second assisting deputy attorney general for special crimes (JAMPIDSUS) to reopen the investigation, prosecution or review of those prosecution cases that are not being processed in an efficient manner, or that have ended in an order to stop investigation (SP3).

In his efforts to reform the prosecution from within, the attorney general would be well-advised to reach for assistance from groups outside the prosecution service: Members of the House -- particularly members of Commission III dealing with law- related matters -- can provide crucial political support; civil society organizations can offer valuable experience in the fields of legal reform and anticorruption efforts; members of reformist academic circles can both offer expertise and generate further public support of the reform.

Supervision of the performance of prosecutors is also a crucial element of the successful reform of the public prosecution. Presently, the legal framework provides an internal control supervision mechanism in the form of the Public Prosecutor's Honor Council (Jamwas), which has proven to be inadequate in dealing with disciplinary and ethical offenses within the public prosecution service in an efficient manner.

This inadequacy has prompted the need for the establishment of an external control mechanism, preferably in the form of a Public Prosecution Service Commission. Abdul Rachman has announced that he will soon present the names of candidates for membership and the structure of the planned commission to the President.

The idea for its establishment is based on Article 38 of Law 16/2004, which empowers the President to establish a commission to enhance the performance of the prosecution service.

The Partnership for Governance Reform recently organized a seminar on the establishment of the commission. During the seminar, the Partnership proposed a model for the commission comprising advisory (internal management), supervisory (performance) and disciplinary (performance and ethical behavior) powers over the prosecution service and its members.

This model is the result of the analysis of the comparative study of the roles and status of the Public Prosecution of 31 countries, as well as a comparative study of the structure and competence of eight judicial/prosecutorial commissions worldwide. As expected, reactions to the proposed model were adverse, ranging from support to strong opposition.

However, it is clear that if the purpose of this commission is to improve the performance of the prosecutorial service, then its competence should surely go beyond an advisory role on an ad hoc basis. The primary criteria of measuring the prosecution's performance should be the impartiality, integrity and ethical behavior of prosecutors.

Clearly, the process of the establishment of the new commission will require the cooperation of the President, the legislature and the attorney general. The selection process of the members of the new commission is a crucial first step in order to ensure that its members have clean track records, integrity and the necessary expertise.

The writer are advisors for the Legal and Judicial Reform Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia.