What is good conduct in the Supreme Court?

What is good conduct in the Supreme Court?

Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto blew the whistle on collusion in
the Supreme Court and is now waiting to hear his fate from the
President. Sociologist Ignas Kleden takes a close look at the
issue.

JAKARTA (JP): The semantics of politics is the politics of
semantics. This is evidently not simply a language game played by
linguists; in the case of Deputy Chief Justice for General Crimes
Adi Andojo Soetjipto the above proposition has come true.

Perhaps to his dismay, Adi Andojo has become, in one month,
one of the most discussed figures in the country. His attempt to
clean up the Supreme Court, has put him in a very controversial
situation.

Let us try to deal with some misgivings which could make
people suspicious of his actions. First, is it possible to say
that he is seeking popular glory and wants to be heralded as a
legal hero? This does not ring true, because what Adi Andojo did
was just to write a normal letter asking for the investigation of
possible collusion within the Supreme Court. The letter, however,
leaked out and Andojo has since just persisted to defend what he
wrote in it.

Second, is it possible to accuse him of wanting to hurt or
even run for the position of Chief Justice by means of dethroning
his own colleague? This also is irrational, since in nine months
he is going to retire.

Third, could we say that he just wants to undermine the
integrity and authority of the Supreme Court as suggested by his
opponents? This is equally nonsensical since he cannot profit
from such a course of action. Besides that, he has a track record
of faithful and diligent service to the Indonesian legal system
over 38 years. So what is the reason for him to become a trouble-
maker in an institution he has cherished for so long?

Considering the many facts which Andojo has brought up so far,
there are enough reasons to believe in his good intentions to
want to rid the Supreme Court of the alleged collusion. The Chief
Justice responded to the allegation by commissioning an
investigation, the results of which, however, were never
discussed with Adi Andojo. Time and again lawyers stress the old
principle et alter pars audiatur (you should listen to both
sides). In this important case it, unfortunately, has not been
adhered to consistently.

In the meantime Adi Andojo keeps talking to the public about
the alleged collusion, which he is confident of being able to
prove. Why not give him a chance? He sticks to his opinion that
given there is collusion, and supposing the Supreme Court is
willing to admit it, its integrity and authority will thereby be
elevated and not undermined. Or are we expected to believe in the
infallibility of the Supreme Court?

The latest reaction of the Chief Justice is the request to the
President to discharge Adi Andojo. This request reflects an
interesting attitude, because a moral-legal action has been met
by a legal-bureaucratic one. Adi Andojo's motivation is evidently
to purify the respected office of alleged collusion, and to
increase public accountability of the affairs within the Supreme
Court. This however, is countered by recourse to bureaucratic
procedure.

Adi Andojo is said to be guilty of misconduct and therefore
should be threatened with disciplinary action. But, alas, what is
good conduct in the first place? Is collusion, if there is any,
good conduct? Moreover, is the effort to cover up the case from
open examination good conduct? Is it good conduct to never give
Adi Andojo a chance to prove his allegations? Is the policy to
keep quiet in the face of public questions on what is going on
good conduct?

Adi Andojo has been ordered not to talk about the case. If we
keep in mind the chronology, it was not his intention to
publicize the alleged collusion. His letter, without him knowing
it, was leaked. It is quite logical for him to stand up to
account for what he has written. The fact that his letter is now
in the public domain is not his responsibility, but he is,
nevertheless, responsible for what he has written. Why should he
stop talking? Is it good conduct not to be responsible for what
one has undertaken?

Who has and who lacks good conduct? Who should face
disciplinary action? Suddenly, we are faced with the politics of
meaning and the politics of semantics. Is good conduct a
bureaucratic and administrative concept, or is it basically a
moral one?

Adi Andojo, whatever end is waiting for him in his struggle,
is, and will always remain, a lesson on the morality of this
nation. Sticking to his moral stance, he has never been trapped
into the temptation of seeking popularity or public praise. He is
correct in refusing to talk about affairs other than his case. He
keeps himself from unnecessary complications by not touching upon
other matters which he feels incompetent of talking about, while
carrying on pursuing the case for which he feels responsible.

We are lucky to have a man like Adi Andojo who demonstrates
clearly that not everything and everybody can be bureaucratized.
There is something which is beyond the reach of
bureaucratization. The freedom of one's soul, is after all, a
benchmark which signifies the moral struggle, civil courage and
spiritual achievement of our time and our country.

The writer is a sociologist now working with the SPES
Foundation Research Center, Jakarta.