Whatever dissatisfaction with the court decisions there is, it should be resolved through judicial procedure. Appeals should be method to bring truth and justice into reality.
By
KOMPAS EDITOR
·3 minutes read
Two cases of judicial corruption are being heard in court. They involve Joko Sugiarto Tjandra and former Supreme Court secretary general Nurhadi.
Both cases, whose investigations were handled by three different institutions – the National Police, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) – have resulted in public disappointment at the decisions of the panels of judges. The trials failed to uncover who was behind the return of graft convict Joko Tjandra.
Prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari, for whom a lenient sentence was demanded by the prosecutors but who was more severely punished by the judicial panel, remained tight-lipped about who the “kingmaker” had been. The panel failed to expose the “kingmaker”.
I’d rather die than see my family’s dignity disparaged like this.
The reaction of former National Police international relations division head Insp. Gen. Napoleon Bonaparte after being sentenced to four years in prison is interesting to examine. The verdict was tougher than the prosecutor’s three-year demand. All the defendants in the Joko case received harsher punishments than those demanded by the prosecutor. Pinangki faced a four-year prison term demanded by his colleague but was sentenced to 10 years in jail.
Against the court verdict, Napoleon filed an appeal and remarked, “I’d rather die than see my family’s dignity disparaged like this.” There seems to have been injustice behind Napoleon’s outcry. An appeal is the right choice and opportunity for Napoleon to reveal what he has been informed of. Napoleon once promised to be open.
Apart from the penalization, which cannot be measured, the amount of money embezzled was not proportional to the sentence passed, so the court decisions have given rise to an elegy. It’s the elegy of injustice. This is even more the case if the judicial system seemingly ignores the presence of persons beyond the reach of the law. This situation is like the model of a “guided court”. The guided court has apparently arranged who will be tried and the punishments demanded, as well as those allowed to flee or remain shrouded in mystery.
Nurhadi, who earned a fortune of Rp 83 billion from his case fixing activities in the Supreme Court (MA), was sentenced to six years in prison out of the 12-year term demanded. Pinangki, found guilty of taking a US$500 million bribe (around Rp6.6 billion), got 10 years’ imprisonment. In its consideration, the judicial panel in Nurhadi’s case rejected the KPK prosecutor’s demand that Nurhadi should pay Rp 83 billion in compensation. The chief judge held the view that Nurhadi obtained the money from a private party. The panel passed a lenient sentence because of Nurhadi’s meritorious service to the MA. The limited sentence has not helped improve the judicial system.
With due respect for the principle of the independence of judicial power, the chief judge’s consideration gives rise to concerns. The panel failed to being a sense of justice to society. Turning case transactions into a means of personal profit is equal to tearing down the walls of truth and justice. Sadly, this principle was defended by the judicial panel in Nurhadi’s case.
However, whatever dissatisfaction with the court decisions there is, it should be resolved through judicial procedure. Appeals should be method to bring truth and justice into reality.