Verdicts show court integrity: Expert

Verdicts show court integrity: Expert

SEMARANG, Central Java (JP): The integrity of the courts of
law is determined to a large extend by the verdicts they produce,
noted law expert Satjipto Rahardjo said.

Joining in the end of year nationwide polemic on the
performance of the courts in Indonesia, Satjipto said that the
courts cannot ask for the respect of the public. Rather it should
gain that respect through its deeds, in this case its verdicts.

"We can draw an analogy with teachers. A teacher does not need
to scream at his students to demand they show him respect," said
the law professor at the state-run Diponegoro University.

"A teacher can only command respect by teaching properly,
sharing his knowledge. This will impress the students and they,
in turn, will respect him," he told The Jakarta Post.

Satjipto also said that the courts must show greater
consistency from one ruling to another if they want to gain
greater public respect.

Recently the integrity of the courts has been questioned by
some legal experts following a number of controversial rulings it
made this year. Some of the rulings reflected its independence
and won plaudits but others prompted jeers and raised questions
about how far the courts really are in being independent of the
government.

The government's plan to raise judges's salaries by 200
percent, designed to strengthen their integrity, beginning in
January, has further fueled the debate.

Satjipto said one of the best verdicts to come this year was
the one issued by justice Asikin Kusumah Atmadja, of the Supreme
Court, in his decision to reverse the high court ruling in the
Kedung Ombo land dispute and award judgment for the villagers and
not the government.

He referred particularly to the content of the verdict and not
the decision itself, which has since be overturned by the Supreme
Court upon appeal from the government. Asikin has since been
retired from the Supreme Court.

He said Asikin, in his ruling, elaborated at length about the
"deliberation", giving his constructive interpretation of the
word and then faulting the government for failing to indulge in
this activity in setting compensation for the villagers whose
land was procured by the state for a huge reservoir.

The Supreme Court simply did not believe that the government
had taken the necessary steps to deliberate with the villagers,
Satjipto said.

He also argued that the courts performance is also determined
by the social structure in which they exist. "They are public
institutions and therefore, cannot be independent of the social
settings," he said.

"Understanding the interactions between the courts and the
social structure is necessary in order to diagnose, and then
provide a therapy to cure, the ills of our courts."

Satjipto said the rises in judges salary, while timely, has
fueled a debate which, in turn, could raised the people's
expectations of the judges' performance exceedingly high.

"This could boomerang on the judges themselves," he said.
(emb)