The following is an excerpt of an interview between The Jakarta Post‘s Sri Wahyuni and Hasrul Halili, head of the Center for Anticorruption Studies’ corruption and judiciary unit, at Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University’s School of Law.
Question: How do you see the progress of judicial reform?
Answer: There are always three important factors that need to be considered in a judicial system: the substance, the structure and the culture. In terms of substance, we are relatively OK now. In terms of structure, there have also been some corrections in some parts, except the structure of the corrupt law enforcement officials. While in terms of culture, we don’t have an anticorruption culture.
What do you think is an effective way of dealing with rampant corruption?
We now have what is called the “corrupt officials retaliate” phenomenon, which has been systematically trying to paralyze the anticorruption elements. This is what happened with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). It was alright when the KPK investigated and uncovered corruption in parliament.
But once it tried to do something with corrupt law enforcement officials, then problems arise.
Many say what’s happening here is exactly the same as what happened in Hong Kong when the Independent Commission for Anti-Corruption (ICAC) went through the police. The police fought back. The ICAC, however, was relatively fortunate as it dealt with the police only because prosecutors and judges there were relatively clean. Other countries also experienced the same phenomena.
Are you saying that corrupt officials retaliating is a global phenomenon?
Yes, it happens everywhere, like in South Korea and Nigeria, where conventional law enforcement agencies fight against the independent anticorruption commissions. The forms vary. Judicial review and criminalization are among others.
I do hope the wind currently fanning the public’s strong resistance to efforts to weaken the KPK, regardless of the corrupt officials’ never-ending retaliation, reflects the optimism we have built up and continued support for the KPK. The KPK must never give up fighting. It must not kiss and make up with troubled law enforcement officials. What we need is a KPK with the guts to fight the corruption committed by law enforcement agencies.
The KPK is an independent body whose task, among others, is to “supervise and coordinate the police and prosecutors as its subordinates”. Therefore if the police and prosecutors fail to deal with corruption cases and even get involved in corruption, then it reflects badly on the KPK for failing to “supervise and coordinate its subordinates”.
It’s also our task to push the KPK to maximize itself in eradicating corruption among law enforcement agencies.
Aren’t the KPK, police and prosecutor’s separate institutions?
I don’t believe it’s the job of any one of them to supervise the others. Coordinate with, yes, but not supervise and coordinate.
How do you rate the KPK so far?
Referring to the gecko-versus-crocodile phenomenon, I just realized that in Indonesian history there has never been an institution that has won the public’s trust like the KPK. For all its shortcomings, the KPK has become the only institution in this republic that has won the people’s sympathy.
This is amazing. That is why the KPK must not let the public down and dash expectations by not working to its maximum. We often criticize the KPK as being the institution that reveals graft cases but never ends them.
However, we have to be optimistic because there has been an extraordinary engagement between the civilian and state elements through this institution called the KPK. The people support the KPK and the KPK can also support the people to help its corruption eradication work.
We recently finished a study on the possibility of establishing KPK representative offices across the country in response to the people’s expectations regarding the presence of the commission in their respective regions.
This is mostly due to the rampant transformation of corruption in regions following the implementation of laws on regional autonomy, while at the same time the conventional law enforcement institutions are not dealing adequately with it.
However we have to be careful in catching this issue as once the KPK really sets up representatives in the regions but fails to maintain its integrity, then it could lead to what can be called the de-sanctification of the KPK.
What long-term solution can you offer to win back the people’s trust in law enforcement institutions?
We have actually done enough with regard to initiatives both in terms of substance and regulations. The Supreme Court, for instance, already has a very good blueprint for bureaucracy reform, including eliminating judicial corruption. The problem is how far it has been implemented.
If we say the elite in law enforcement institutions mostly belong to a generation that has been contaminated by legal problems, or are prisoners of their respective past, borrowing (Constitutional Court chief) Mahfud M.D.’s terminology, then we have to make sure that in the long run there has to be acceleration of officials.
To sum up, what we need in the long run is to consistently and gradually implement all the blueprints we have produced and make sure that the judicial reform initiative is maintained and continued so that it will not just die because the corrupt officials are fighting back systematically.
The blessing in disguise, therefore, is that thanks to the KPK-versus-police conflict, people are now aware that the fight against corruption is getting tougher and tougher.
They can feel the corrupt officials retaliating, which is striking directly at the heart of the anticorruption movement.
