Overcoming Legal Civilization Emergency

Allegations of bribery of the Supreme Court justice and various other problems in the law enforcement agency indicate that there is an emergency in the legal civilization. A thorough evaluation is needed.

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

Supreme Court Justice Sudrajad Dimyati (center) wearing an orange vest and being led to a prisoner's car after undergoing an examination at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Jakarta, Friday (23/9/2022).

JAKARTA, KOMPAS — The disclosure of the allegations of bribery in handling cases at the Supreme Court involving a supreme justice strengthen the indications that the country is currently in a state of a judicial and legal civilization emergency. A comprehensive reform of the legal civilization is urgently needed.

"The detention of the Supreme Court justice can be an issue that not only shocks the public at home, but also internationally," said former Supreme Court justice T Gayus Lumbuun who was contacted from Jakarta on Sunday (9/25/2022).

Gayus also said that all law enforcement agencies in recent years have been rocked by various problems. The Attorney General's Office, for example, was in the public spotlight when Pinangki Sirna Malasari, who at that time served as a prosecutor at the Attorney General's Office, was implicated in the case for the arrangement of the fugitive, Joko S Tjandra, case. When this case emerged in 2020, the names of the Attorney General and the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were mentioned, even though in the end there was no evidence to show a connection.

Also read:

> KPK Finds Indications of Bribery for Other Cases

> Bribery Allegedly Still Occurs at the Supreme Court

Then, a more recent case involves the former head of the Profession and Security (Propam) Division of the Indonesian National Police, Insp. Gen. Ferdy Sambo. Meanwhile, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) lost one of its commissioners, Lili Pintauli Siregar, who resigned after a number of alleged ethical violation scandals.

The latest case involves Supreme Court Justice Sudrajad Dimyati, who is suspected of accepting bribes in handling civil cases related to the bankruptcy of the Intidana Savings and Loans Cooperative. Sudrajad was temporarily dismissed from his position as supreme justice by the Supreme Court.

Based on this issue, according to Gayus, the President can form a national evaluation team to evaluate the performance of law enforcement officers, from the police and prosecutors to the courts. Evaluations are carried out, from the highest leaders in law enforcement agencies to the leaders at the regency/city level.

So, in theory it is the same for the police, the prosecutor's office and the court.

The evaluation includes two things, namely whether the person concerned is administratively capable in fulfilling the requirements to occupy his position and evaluating the performance of the official concerned. The performance report is linked to public complaints received by relevant agencies and their supervisory agencies.

"So, in theory it is the same for the police, the prosecutor's office and the court," he said.

For the KPK, Gayus said that a similar evaluation can be carried out by the President. This is not prohibited. What is prohibited, however, is evaluating the implementation of law enforcement functions, namely investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating cases.

KOMPAS/YUNIADHI AGUNG

Gayus Lumbuun

A sense of urgency

According to Gayus, the evaluation of the Supreme Court leadership in the institution can be carried out immediately. This is urgent because of the importance of the efforts to restore public trust at home and abroad. The Supreme Court has also issued Decree Number 1 of 2017, which states tiered sanctions against superiors from parties who commit criminal acts.

Previously, the former ad hoc judge on Corruption Crimes at the Supreme Court, Krisna Harahap, revealed the tendency of the Supreme Court leadership to be very protective in preventing negative media about the highest judicial institution. Such a method has a negative impact, which seems to provide an opportunity to those who are "playing with fire" to get bolder. According to Krisna, Supreme Court justices know who is playing with fire; the leadership, especially the chairperson of the Supreme Court Guidance and Supervision Chamber.

Also read:

> Safeguarding the Last Bastion

In this regard, Supreme Court spokesperson Andi Samsan Nganro explained that information and knowledge on the Supreme Court leadership is very limited regarding allegations of corruption or bribery. Reports or complaints only ask for monitoring or supervision of ongoing cases at the cassation or review level and even sometimes on first and appeal levels. Complaints are followed up by forwarding reports as information to be more careful.

"Indeed, there are often reports from litigants who lost on the first or on appeal levels, saying that they lost based on the suspicion that their opponent had bribed the judge. We follow up on such reports so that the Bawas (Supervisory Agency) can investigate the truth. We never cover up reports that violate the law, the code of ethics or deviant behaviors," said Andi Samsan.

Indonesia Judicial Research Society’s executive director Dio Ashar revealed that the Supreme Court has made several efforts to implement e-Court and one-stop services for the public. Dio said that while he appreciated the Court’s efforts, the scope of policies, from administration to copies of the Court’s decision and power to attorney, need to be expanded. Dio added that, “e-Court is only able to try cases of illegal levies, but not bribery cases involving the Court's decision.” he said.

This article was translated by Hyginus Hardoyo