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.