Half-hearted Corruption Court
.
The Corruption Court has again shown a lack of impartiality toward efforts to combat corruption. Several years ago the court tended to hand down lenient sentences to corruption convicts. Now the lenient sentences for corruption convicts are being repeated.
In a study of Corruption Court sentencing trends, Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) recorded that 448 corruption convicts were leniently sentenced (imprisonment of one to four years) by the court. This situation has not changed for more than four years.
The light sentences by the Corruption Court for convicts did not occur only in 2016. The ICW recorded that since 2012 the tendency to hand down light sentences was continuous and even showed an increase. In 2013 the ICW recorded that 395 convicts received light sentences out of a total of 501 defendants who were found guilty by the court. In 2014, 372 defendants were sentenced lightly, and in 2015 400 defendants got light sentences.
Handing down light sentences for a majority of corruption convicts shows there are serious problems in the body of the Corruption Court. The public is entitled to be disappointed by the court, since it is expected to be able to make changes in the fight against corruption.
However, in practice, the Corruption Court does not contribute significantly to efforts to combat corruption. In the context of sentencing, there is hardly any significant difference between corruption as an extraordinary crime and other ordinary crimes, such as theft or fraud.
The creation of the Corruption Court as a court to specially handle corruption cases cannot be separated from the spirit of combating massive corruption.
This is because corruption is regarded as a serious crime, which has a very broad and damaging impact. Corruption has also been transformed into a crime against human rights. Unfortunately, the Corruption Court has not been able to carry out the mandate of its formation. The phenomenon of handing down lenient sentences is clearly counter-productive to the effort to combat corruption more broadly.
The lenient sentence phenomenon is contrary to the sense of justice in the wider community as the victims of corruption. The people expect the Corruption Court to impose heavier sentences, since corruption has a broad impact and constitutes a crime against human rights.
Handing down heavier sentences to corruption convicts is a form of siding on the part of the court with the people, who are the victims of corruption. Apart from considerations of justice for the perpetrators, the court has to consider the public\'s sense of justice. Therefore, it is no exaggeration for the public to expect heavier sentences for corruption convicts.
Roots of the problem
The issue of lenient sentence for corruption convicts needs to be thoroughly reevaluated in a search for the causes. However, it could simply be caused by non-technical and technical reasons. In the non-technical reasons, the pattern of recruitment and training of judges plays a crucial role. It is impossible to get competent judges from the current recruitment and training process.
The ICW recorded that over the last two years the process of recruitment of ad hoc corruption judges has not been satisfactory. This is caused by the fact that there have been no candidates who met the criteria as ad hoc corruption judges. Knowledge and integrity are the main criteria of ad hoc corruption judges, which candidates find difficult to meet.
Unfortunately, despite the low quality, the Supreme Court has insisted on choosing existing candidates to be appointed as ad hoc corruption judges. Ad hoc corruption judges are important since they are special judges whose expertise is needed to decide corruption cases and to contribute optimally to the adjudication process in the Corruption Court. It is no wonder that current Corruption Court sentences are not in line with the spirit of fighting corruption because they stem from judge selection, which does not focus on individual quality.
Moreover, the process of educating Corruption Court judges is inadequate. Corruption Court judges who are career judges or ad hoc corruption judges do not get sufficient time or coaching to enrich themselves with a deeper understanding of corruption. Education of corruption judges has not been sufficient to build their commitment and spirit to combat corruption. On the contrary, eight corruption judges have been caught by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) red-handed for accepting bribes.
From the technical perspective, there are two things that need attention. First, the lenient sentences of the Corruption Court cannot be separated from the low demands by prosecutors. As with lenient sentences for corruption convicts, low demands have also been commonplace over the last three years. Prosecutors tend to demand light sentences and raise disparities in the prosecution.
Second is the absence of sentencing guidelines for judges to decide corruption cases. The law provides very broad freedom to judges in imposing criminal penalties for perpetrators. However, frequently the sentencing choices are difficult to justify and even lead to disparities in sentencing.
Injustice problems
This practice eventually gives birth to the problems of injustice for perpetrators and victims of corruption. Ideally, the judges’ discretion in sentencing needs adequate guidelines. Not in order to limit their independence, but simply to justify the court’s sentences, quite apart from preventing abusive practices and sentence trading.
In principle, the sentencing guidelines do not reduce the freedom and independence of judges. The judges still have the freedom and independence to determine the sentences, but within the parameters that are laid down in the sentencing guidelines.
The commitment to eradicate corruption by the Corruption Court is simply realized by stating that corruption convicts are guilty and handing down sentences for all the perpetrators in the trials. What is more essential is to hand down sentences that are fair to both the perpetrators and the community, as the victims of corruption. Judges should also be encouraged to hand down sentences that are the logical consequence of the fact that corruption constitutes a serious crime, which violates human rights.
ARADILA CAESAR IFMAINI IDRIS
Legal Researcher of Indonesia Corruption Watch
