Time for Supreme Court to improve its image

Time for Supreme Court to improve its image

T.Sima Gunawan, Contributor, Jakarta , tabita@cbn.net.id

A judge is one of the most respected professionals in society
with such reverence and power that he or she is called "your
honor".

Whenever the judges enter the courtroom in their black robes,
everyone must rise and remain standing as the judges take their
seats. Anyone who fails to show proper respect could be charged
with contempt of court.

Judges, in this court system, have the last word in deciding
whether one is right or wrong in a court of law. The decision
must be made in accordance with the existing laws and
regulations.

But law, however, is not mathematics which can be solved
through a scientific and exact calculation. There are many
factors behind decisions, from social and economic factors to
politics. Legal interpretations of the laws may vary and
sometimes court decisions become controversial.

However, experience shows us that the judges here usually do
not get admonished for poor decisions that they make, no matter
how controversial.

There are three levels of the courts in this country's
judicial system: The District Court, which is the lowest level,
the Provincial or High Court and the Supreme Court. If one is not
satisfied with the decision made by the judge at the first level,
one may appeal to the higher level, and again up to the Supreme
Court through a long, often painful process.

In arriving at their verdict, the judges must base it on
justice and mention God the Almighty, as required by the law. But
judges are not God and like other human beings, they may make
errors, as reflected by controversial decisions considered to go
against the public's sense of justice.

The most recent case took place last week with the asset
preservation order by the East Jakarta District Court on a home
belonging to Goenawan Mohamad, co-founder of Tempo magazine, as
well as the office of Koran Tempo daily. The court order, in
effect, was to secure the house as collateral in a libel suit
filed by business tycoon Tomy Winata. The orders were based on
the request of the plaintiff, who demanded Rp 21 billion in
compensation from Goenawan. Goenawan allegedly implied, in the
newspaper, that Tomy was a thug, after a protest involving
intimidation and violence against Tempo journalists by Tomy's
biggest fans.

Such a request for the court to secure a defendant's assets as
collateral is quite common. But many questions have been raised
about the swiftness with which the court acted to execute this
particular request. The order was made only a few days after the
request was filed and the court did not take Goenawan's
credibility into consideration. Society would surely cheer if the
court issued such an order to immediately seize the assets of
suspected corruptors -- which for the most part it has not -- but
not such a respected figure like Goenawan.

Judges are administratively under the Ministry of Justice and
Human Rights, and technically under the supervision of the
Supreme Court.

Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Izra Mahendra
seemed to brush aside widespread criticism by saying merely that
an asset preservation order was a common practice.

Chief Justice Bagir Manan seemed to take it a bit more
serious, calling upon judges not to become a tool in the hand of
any parties in a dispute. He said after meeting with Goenawan and
his lawyers last Friday that he would study the procedures on the
issuance of the asset preservation order to see if there were any
irregularities. He also promised to give direction to the judges
concerned.

Many have lamented the poor implementation of the law, marred
by the rampant corruption among law enforcers, including the
judges. The problem lingers and has become worse.

Corruption in the judiciary is, in a way, like a ghost.
Everybody talks about it, but it is hard to prove its existence
due to lack of evidence. Bribes, of course, do not involve
written receipts nor even, perhaps, traceable bank transfers.

Last year three Central Jakarta District Court judges --
Tjahyono, CH Kristi Purnamiwulan and Hasan Basri -- were
suspended for allegedly taking bribes to declare Manulife
bankrupt. The controversial verdict, which was later overturned
by a higher court, had caused an uproar as the company was
mathematically healthy and solvent.

The three judges were investigated by the Supreme Court not
because they issued the verdict, but because they were accused of
taking bribes. They were later reinstated after the Supreme
Court's disciplinary committee found them innocent.

In December last year, lawyer Wawan Iriawan reported an
alleged extortion attempt by judge Torang H. Tampubolon of the
South Jakarta District Court. He said that the judge had demanded
Rp 3 billion in exchange for a favorable ruling for his client.
The request was rejected, but Wawan said that his client had
bought the judge a cell phone upon the latter's request. The
Supreme Court had ordered an investigation into the case, but as
of today, the development of the case remains unclear.

In the Tempo case, it would be premature to accuse the East
Jakarta District Court judges of taking bribes. The Supreme Court
Chief Justice has promised to investigate the case and people can
only wait for the decision. But people have the right to know
about the process and the Supreme Court must openly announce the
result.

So far, there is a lack of transparency in the investigation
of judges who are suspected of abusing their power. The Supreme
Court has never released any data about the number of judges who
have been investigated nor what action has been taken against any
who have been found guilty.

The Supreme Court must be transparent in order to avoid the
accusation that they, affected by "the spirit of the corps", are
trying to cover up cases implicating fellow judges and make them
a state secret. Such accusations are not exactly baseless.

Many doubt the credibility of the Supreme Court, especially
after last year's reports about the alleged corruption involving
justice Supraptini Sutarto and former justices M. Yahya Harahap
and Marnis Kahar. Two of them were later tried at the West
Jakarta District Court and the other at the Central Jakarta
District Court. But both courts dismissed the cases due to what
was referred to as a legal technicality.

When the reform movement was launched in 1998, the Supreme
Court had the great opportunity to improve its image and show its
serious commitment to legal reform, given the public support for
judicial reform. It is not too late for the Supreme Court to do
its best to positively respond to the public outcry over the
failure of legal reform by correcting the judiciary system now.