Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Agus Rahardjo (center) holds up evidence during a press conference at the KPK building in Jakarta on Tuesday (22/8). The evidence included a bank book and proof of transfer from suspects Tarmizi and Ahmad from the South Jakarta District Court. The KPK has also confiscated up to Rp 425 million (US$31,832) in the case.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The arrest of another court clerk by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in connection with yet another court bribery case shows a weakness in the case management system at the Supreme Court and in the judiciary institutions below it.
The reoccurrence of bribery in court cases that involves its clerks cannot be blamed merely on individual wrongdoings, as the existing system does not effectively eliminate loopholes and prevent such acts of corruption.
Supreme Court spokesperson Suhadi said the court had tried its utmost to supervise every single one of its staff, including its judges and clerks. “If there are still individuals that commit such acts, they must bear the consequences themselves, because this is an individual act,” Suhadi said in Jakarta, Tuesday (22/8).
A researcher at the Institute for Study and Advocacy for Judicial Independence(LeIP), Liza Farihah, said that it was not enough for the Supreme Court to resolve the problem by merely pointing to an individual as the guilty party in the KPK’s arrest of a court clerk. The court also needed to revamp its system to prevent repeat incidents.
The KPK arrested on Monday a South Jakarta District Court substitute clerk, Tarmizi, who is suspected of accepting a total of Rp 400 million in bribes from Akhmadi Zaini, a lawyer for PT Aquamarine Divindo Inspection (ADI).
The arrest was made in connection to a breach of contract between PT ADI and Eastern Jason Fabrication Services, Pte Ltd (EJFS) filed in October 2016. PT ADI was accused of a breach of contract that caused material losses of US$3.2 million and S$131,000 to EJFS. In its civil lawsuit, the EJFS wants PT ADI to pay compensation of US$ 7.6 million and S$131,000.
It is reported that Zaini bribed Tarmizi to influence the judge’s decision, so that his client would not have to pay the demanded compensation.
The bribe money was transferred in three batches. The first two batches were transferred on July 22, with an initial Rp 25 million for operational costs, followed by Rp 100 million for the fulfillment of their agreement. The third batch of Rp 300 million was transferred at the time of the KPK’s sting operation. This money was not transferred to Tarmizi’s bank account, but to one belonging to a cleaning staff, Teddy Junaedi.
KPK chairman Agus Rahardjo said the KPK had not yet found a link between Tarmizi and the judge of the case. “As of today, we have not investigated other parties, but it will follow,” he said.
Modus operandi
Liza said that the arrest of yet another court clerk linked to a bribery case was not merely a moral issue of the individual concerned, but also the result of the many loopholes in the judiciary system that could be exploited for profit by court staff, including clerks.
According to Liza, anyone who works at the courts, even the document courier, can take advantage of these loopholes, as long as they understood the workings of the court. The Supreme Court did not have adequate human resources to supervise every one of its total 830 working units. “Therefore, what is needed is to improve the case management system by changing it from a complicated system into a simpler and more transparent system,” she said.
For example, a clerk or another court staff can “play” with the verdict document by delaying the delivery of its copy to obtain money from parties involved in the case. The document would only be delivered in exchange for a certain amount of money. This method was used by the former head of the Supreme Court’s civil appeal sub-directorate, Andri Tristianto Sutrisna, who accumulated more than Rp 500 million in bribes from the cases he handled.
Law and Policy Study Center (PSHK) researcher Fajri Nursyamsi said that it was easy for clerks, the first court staff to learn about a judge’s verdict, to misuse their position. One of the modus operandi frequently employed by clerks is selling information on the judge’s verdict.
“Let’s say, for example, [the clerk]learns that party A in a dispute has won the case. However, the clerk takes advantage of that by calling A or their lawyer, asking for a certain amount of money to help ensure that they win the case, when in fact, he already knows that the judge’s verdict is in favor of A,” said Fajri.
The second modus operandi is that judges would use the clerks as a go-between to ask for money from the disputing parties. In such situations, Fajri said, the clerks act as the judge’s right-hand man to obtain the money. This was because it was easy for clerks to communicate with the disputing parties.
According to Fajri, the circle of corruption in the judiciary system was difficult to break, and it was likely that more clerks would be arrested by the KPK if the Supreme Court didn’t overhaul its system.
One of the ways of controlling the behavior of clerks is through the civil servant wealth report (LHKASN). However, the compliance level of the LHKASN, which is managed by the Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Ministry, has been difficult to gauge. This is not the case with the state official wealth report (LHKPN), the compliance level of which can be viewed by the KPK.
“We admit that we are experiencing difficulties in analyzing the LHKASN. It is different with the LHKPN, on which we are always in coordination with the KPK, particularly if there are particular cases (to look at),” said the Supreme Court’s Supervision Department junior head, Sunarto.
