Upholding the law

Upholding the law

Investigations into practices of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) in the judiciary is of the greatest importance. KKN was suspected of being widely practiced in this institution many years ago, long before anyone dared to speak up openly about investigating Soeharto's wealth. Added to such practices were various inconsistencies prevalent in the judiciary.

Adi Andojo Soetjipto, former deputy chairman of the Supreme Court, recently revealed that the judiciary is not free from KKN because money speaks to many judges (Kompas, Sept. 18). Lawyer and academician T. Mulya Lubis, quoting Daniel Kaufman (1998), has said that more than 80 percent of the companies which come into contact with Indonesian courts feel compelled to resort to bribes to win their case or to facilitate their interests. He also said Indonesia's judiciary was worse than in other countries (Kompas, Sept. 19).

We live in a state with laws. If during Soeharto's reign the Supreme Court and its institutions had functioned as they should have, i.e. in accordance with their power, authority and responsibility, they should have refrained from acting against the rules. Accordingly, what actually happened over his 32-year presidency should not have taken place.

Let us suppose the investigation into Soeharto's wealth bears fruit and others guilty of KKN could be brought to court and subsequently incarcerated. The problem is that while our Supreme Court and its agencies continue to practice their old ways, the future is sure to bring us new Soehartos. Political and social upheavals the like those of March and May will certainly recur in five, 10, 20 or 30 years.

Therefore, the government and the country's political parties should make it a priority to press the new House of Representatives to pass new laws on the Supreme Court and on the basic stipulations of judicial power to replace law No. 14 of 1985 and No. 14 of 1970. We must also understand, however, that the judiciary's practices of KKN did not lie with the laws but with the mentality of its officials.

In this context, as I once put forward in a letter dated July 20, I again propose the immediate establishment of (1) a fact- finding committee dealing with corruption and collusion in the judiciary and (2) a committee to reform the Supreme Court. Details on personnel and duties of each committee were contained in my previous letter.

If such committees, due to various reasons and considerations, would be difficult to establish, the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) should pay serious attention to KKN in the judiciary, e.g. by forming a special division for the purpose.

If the ICW does not have enough courage to expose such practices, it would be only logical that people would question its motivation, existence and "progress".

Inquiries, investigations and prosecutions of those believed to be practicing KKN in the judiciary should apply a principle of reversing the burden of proof.

KAMAL FIRDAUS

Yogyakarta