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