The Fading of the Integrity and Ethics of Law Enforcers

Public trust in state institutions as products of reform, such as the Constitutional Court (MK), the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Judicial Commission, is increasingly being eroded. This situation complements the low level of public trust in the old law-enforcement institutions, namely the police, the prosecutors’ office and the judiciary.

Really ironic. Twenty-four years after the New Order, the conditions in these three state institutions are not getting better, but increasingly moving away from the ideals of reform to build and enforce a state of law and democracy. These three state institutions even seem increasingly to be institutions that clearly legalize and legitimize the denial of the state of law and democracy itself.

The public ridicule of the decisions of the Constitutional Court (MK) has been sharp, to the point that the term MK is no longer the guardian of the constitution, but a buffer for the oligarchs.

Likewise with the KPK, instead of being more competent and trusted in eradicating corruption, it has been plagued with cases of ethical violations by its commissioners.

Also read:

> Two Blows for Corruption Eradication

> Traces of History of Corruption Eradication

Meanwhile, the Judicial Commission is increasingly disappearing and far from the public's memory as an ethics enforcer. The root of the problem is the neglect of transparent and accountable selection and the neglect of the principle of integrity in filling positions in each of these law-enforcement institutions.

The principles of independence, impartiality and competence as elements of integrity that must be the main consideration for sitting in these three state institutions have disappeared from the recruitment mechanism. The mechanism for filling the Constitutional Court judges, which was problematic from the start, has not been fixed. The KPK selection was deliberately designed to prevent those with integrity from becoming commissioners.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Commission selection committee failed to select members who have strong characters as ethics enforcers. What is most memorable is the dominance of the majority group of members who tend to enjoy the office.

Independence

Independence is a personal quality that is built-in in each member of the three state institutions, and is not an ethical guarantee and legal guarantee given by the state. The state and positive law (modern law) that came later legalized and legitimized it into ethical principles for law enforcement.

The main foundation of independence is individual morality. Whether or not the independence is strong depends on the personality in question. Law-enforcement officers who are morally flawed, have a bad record in the past or are connoisseurs of office do not have a solid footing to say and act boldly to uphold the truth. The immoral will be anxious, worried because he is held hostage by his flaws; and the connoisseur of office will not side brightly and firmly with the truth if it will threaten the enjoyment of future office.

In fact, law-and-ethics enforcement officers should demonstrate and promote high standards of behavior to strengthen public confidence in themselves and their institutions.

Such law-and-ethics enforcement officers will always be a burden on the institutions and their clean peers. In every decision-making that requires firmness in favor of justice, truth and humanity, they tend to make compromises, not choosing or even denying the truth. In fact, law-and-ethics enforcement officers should demonstrate and promote high standards of behavior to strengthen public confidence in themselves and their institutions.

Moreover, being a judge, eradicating corruption and upholding ethics must absolutely be a moralist, an intellectual who never stops thinking, conducting religious remembrance and maintaining personal hygiene in fighting for truth and justice.

Impartiality

Impartiality is evenhandedness, not a conflict of interest or a condition in which law-enforcement officers have no personal doubts and can be trusted to be nonpartisan, standing tall in revealing the truth, carrying out the law to uphold justice without turning away.

Impartiality requires law-enforcement officers to be free from prejudices, ensure that they are objective and disqualify themselves from a case if they face a reality that is not in line with the principle of impartiality, both subjective impartiality and objective impartiality.

Subjective impartiality is not taking sides, not turning away and not having a conflict of interest with the legal subject (person or legal entity) that is in litigation. Meanwhile, objective impartiality is that law enforcers are impartial, do not turn away and do not have a conflict of interest with the object of the case.

If diagnosed via the two forms of impartiality, almost all of the Constitutional Court's decisions on judicial review (UU) were born from processes that violated the principle of impartiality. Judges of the Constitutional Court who have been part of the formation of laws that express opinions about a draft law, have conflicts of interest with legislative and/or executive leaders, have been or are still part of certain institutions and then become judges in cases filed by certain institutions should not be allowed to examine, adjudicate and make decisions.

Such persons should resign, but there is always a reason to refute this even if that reason does not challenge the universal principle.

Competence

Competence refers to the condition that a special-education base, experience and special skills are required for a law-and-ethics enforcer so that he is believed to have the ability to carry out his mandate as the law-and-ethics enforcer.

The competence of a law-and-ethics enforcer is not only needed for the objectivity of the law-and-ethics enforcement process, but also the rights of justice seekers to be processed by law so that objectively the case becomes clear which is right, what is wrong, who is entitled and who is burdened with obligations.

It can be imagined the damage to the image of law-and-ethics enforcement if a case is handled by incompetent enforcement officers, or examined, tried and decided by incompetent judges.

Competence is also required to maintain the image and authority of the institution as a prerequisite for building public trust. It can be imagined the damage to the image of law-and-ethics enforcement if a case is handled by incompetent enforcement officers, or examined, tried and decided by incompetent judges.

Therefore, an enforcer of law-and-ethics must continuously improve his knowledge, experience and skills through official education, training, reading books, decisions (jurisprudence) journals or relevant and related scientific works. This includes international laws, international human-rights conventions and international jurisprudence. The goal is to maintain competence and continue to grow.

Finally, independence, impartiality and competence as elements of integrity are cumulative. If one is not owned, then there will never be integrity. Law enforcers who are competent, but not independent and impartial, will give birth to a legal process of buying and selling. Having independence and impartiality but poor competence gives birth to poor-quality legal processes and decisions.

Suparman Marzuki,Lecturer of the Faculty of Law, Islamic University of Indonesia

(This article was translated by Hyginus Hardoyo)