Supreme Court spokesman Suhadi (left), Supreme Court supervisory body head Sunarto (center) and Supreme Court public relations head Abdulah Karo read out statements on the arrest of the Manado High Court chief justice at a press conference at the court’s complex in Jakarta, Monday (9/10). They stated that the Supreme Court had periodically carried out internal inspections.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS — Corruption involving judicial institutions is not driven by need, but rather by greed. Judicial institutions require model leadership from among their elite, as well as enforcement of internal and external supervision.
To date, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has prosecuted17 Supreme Court (MA) judges since the anti-graft body was established in 2003. In the latest case on Friday (6/10), the KPK arrested Manado High Court chief justice Sudiwardono in Jakarta for accepting bribes from Aditya Anugrah Moha, a House member of the Golkar Party faction.
MA legal and public relations bureau head Abdullah said on Tuesday (10/10) in Jakarta the regulation and remuneration for judges were relatively adequate.
Facilities
Abdullah added that the base salary for MA personnel, from judges to court clerks, was equal to civil servant grade salaries. The differences were in the allowance, which was determined by the personnel’s rank and position.
For example, Sudiwardono now receives a basic monthly salary of Rp 2.6 million, or 50 percent of his usual salary because he has been temporarily dismissed from his position. However, according to Government Regulation (PP) No. 94/2012 on the Right to Compensation and Benefits for MA Judges, appellate court judges with the position of chief justice like Sudiwardono are entitled to Rp 40.2 million in monthly allowance. “It is the allowance that is large,” said Abdullah.
Aside from the salary and allowance, Article 2 of PP No. 94/2012 stipulates that judges also receive benefits such as an official residence, transportation, health and safety insurance and allowances for official trips, as well as protocol services.
In this regard, judges who take bribes do so not because of a low salary. “That is driven by [individual] intent and lifestyle,” Abdullah said.
Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies researcher Miko Ginting said justices received sufficient remuneration. Therefore, the key to preventing corruption in the judiciary was to give room for accountability.
Supervision
Miko said judiciary corruption occurred because the great power justices hold was not accompanied by accountability. The supervision of judges and court apparatuses was not maximized. The Supreme Court has a supervisory body consisting of 10 officials that have been trained by the KPK.
Yet, the number of supervisory personnel is much lower than the court employees they must supervise.
Supervision into all levels of the judiciary has not been managed as expected. Sudiwardono was responsible for judicial supervision in his province, but he himself has reportedly been involved in bribery.
Meanwhile, the supervisory role of the Judicial Commission (JC) has not been maximized, mainly due to difficulties in defining judicial technicalities, said Miko. This means that the JC’s recommendations are not implemented because they are considered technical.
Law lecturer Abdul Fikcar Hadjarat Jakarta’s Trisakti University said the country needed to strengthen the supervision of judges approaching retirement.
In addition, the Supreme Court also needed to ban events with large expenses that were not mentioned in the state budget. The need to finance such events could push judicial personnel into corruption, either by trading in their cases or selling their influence.
No less important, he said, was to set an example of a modest lifestyle among the judiciary, from the leadership down to low-level staff. The salary and allowances of the judiciary’s human resources were measurable, so it would be easy to tell if the judiciary, including judges, were corrupt or not by looking at their lifestyle and their bank account.
Career development
Upward mobility at judicial institutions also needed improvement, because the it could be an entry point for the judicial mafia.
Indonesia Corruption Watch researcher Lalola Easter said promotions and appointments at judicial institutions had become public knowledge. For example, in order for a judicial employee to avoid being transferred to a remote city, they must remain close to their superiors. Sometimes, this involved illicit payments. All levels of the judiciary were connected, from recruitment to promotions and appointments to another city, so any disruption in the system would affect judicial reforms.
JC spokesperson Farid Wajdi said upward mobility at judicial institutions was discriminatory. There are judges who remain on Java for a long time; but there are also judges who remain in the regions.
“There are complaints from judges, saying they would never be able to become a judge on Java, let alone in Jakarta, if they did not have connections,” said Farid.
He added the judges assigned to remote areas faced low welfare. “Many judges are assigned to areas far from their place of origin without considering their needs, including housing. Whereas [judges] have the right to housing, transportation and protocol services,” he said.
Wealth, Farid said, was not everything in the judiciary. Insufficient wealth could not cannot be blamed for the lagging judicial reform. “The most important thing is integrity. Judges have the highest pay among civil servants,” he said.
