Amendment to the Constitution

Just relax: Suspended deputy chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commision (KPK) Bibit S. Rianto (left) and Chandra M. Hamzah relax after their request for ajudicial review of the law on the permanent suspension of KPK leadership was approved by the Constitutional Court in Jakarta. JP/Wendra Ajistyatama

In an interview with The Jakarta Post’s Research and Development staff,  Frans Surdiasis and Rais Hidayat, the head of the BPHN (National Law Supervision Agency), Prof. Ahmad M. Ramli, explained the importance of amending the Constitution to cover more fundemantal subjects. The following is an excerpt of the interview:

Question: Could you evaluate our legal reform? What should we do to boost the reform efforts?

Answer: One of the most fundamental pillars we have to excercise is the amendment of the Constitution. The very simple Constitution must be more detailed especially on checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches. There are also other rights such as the rights to access information, and the rights to communicate. It is aimed at developing the Constitution as a strong character in the future. Of course it needs more time to implement the amendment into our national legal system.

We also need to straighten out the relation among state institutions. Now each institution, like the Supreme Court and the National Police (Polri) regulates itself with its own law on its rights and obligations. It creates conflicts among the state institutions. The interrelations should be straightened.

We need law on the relations among law enforcement institutions that each knows precisely what policies they can take and what is their limit.

What else should we do in the future?

The  supremacy of law must be developed. The reform we wish for is to maintain consistency in our law, including not mixing law with politics. When there is legal case it should be judged merely from a legal point of view. When the legal case is judged from a political angle, what emerges is public distrust against our law enforcers and the prevailing legal system.

Should legal reform be prioritized on legal structure, law enforcement or legal culture?

The third aspect must involve working together because without solid infrastructure another two aspects will not function. For instance, legal culture: a good society does not only have legal culture but is legally smart. A solid legal culture not accompanied by a legally smart society is reflected in the rising case of divorce in the court. Many cases can be settled out of the court. The government is obliged to share the information to the public.When the government does not provide enough information and facility for the society to enable them to understand the law better, there will be oppressive practice.

What is our achievement on legal culture?

We are still weak concerning this. One of the duties of the BPHN is to develop the legal culture with our limited capacity. In the future, when we have stronger support from the government in promoting this legal culture, I believe the result will be much more fruitful. I observed the problems in law enforcement, but we need to see the problem  clearly. There are problems, but we always need the police and the Attorney General’s Office, and also the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission). I think people realize the importance of these three institutions.

How about the KPK role?

The KPK is extraordinary. People who in the past were not afraid to commit corruption now are. Although compared to the police the KPK is a new and small institution but its presence has created an extraordinary culture and atmosphere of fear against corruption.

I can imagine when the collaboration among these three law enforcing institutions work well, the result will be amazing. Now people are scared. Ministers (including former ministers), state officials and governors were investigated. They were almost untouchable in the past. This has created an extraordinary climate for law enforcement.

What are the real problems in upholding the law?

First is about the harmonization and synchronization of the Polri, Attorney General’s Office and the KPK. We need to regulate these three agencies. They are currently separated from each other. Each of them has its own law. Secondly, the three agencies need to cooperate with each other. It is not just a matter of synchronization. There should be harmony, of course as long as the law gives the three of them the same authority concerning corruption. The results will be effective if they can collaborate with each other.

What kind of internal improvements do the three agencies need to perform?

First is internal control and supervision. Each agency must have internal control.

They have supervision inspectorate. When this can be optimalized the result will be significant. We realize there is no agency that can act like an angel. Public monitoring of the institutions remains important. The press and other elements of civil society can do this. The judge for will consider the verdict when the public demands justice. Concerning press supervision, most move within the corridor of law. Do not side with non-legal norms. Meanwhile the public monitoring does not need to be regulated. Let the public participation work as it is now. The more it is regulated the less aspirative the society will be. We already have the National Ombudsman. But apart from that there are still various channels, through NGOs, for instance.