TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Editorial: A shameful deed
“What a shame,” people will likely say about the six years’ imprisonment handed down on Monday by the Corruption Court to Jakarta State Administrative High Court judge Ibrahim for accepting a bribe in a land dispute
Change Size
“What a shame,” people will likely say about the six years’ imprisonment handed down on Monday by the Corruption Court to Jakarta State Administrative High Court judge Ibrahim for accepting a bribe in a land dispute.
The verdict is another slap in the face for the Indonesian judiciary, as public perceptions of the institution remain very low. As a judge, Ibrahim should have been the last bastion in the country’s judicial system (after National Police officers and Attorney General’s Office prosecutors) in upholding justice, not the one committing the wrongdoing.
Ibrahim was found guilty of accepting a Rp 300 million (US$33,000) bribe from Adner Sirait, the lawyer of businessman Darianus Lungguk Sitorus, to help his client win a legal battle at Jakarta State Administrative High Court over a land dispute with the Jakarta administration.
The dispute centers around a 9.9-hectare plot of land in Cengkareng, West Jakarta, with multiple ownership certificates — one belonging to PT Sabar Ganda, a company owned by Sitorus, and another to the Jakarta administration. Jakarta State Administrative Court started the hearing for the disputes in June last year and issued a ruling in favor of PT Sabar Ganda in November, also last year. However, the administration then filed an appeal to Jakarta State Administrative High Court last February.
The case against judge Ibrahim and lawyer Adner (tried in separate hearings) was filed by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to the Corruption Court after commission investigators caught Ibrahim on Jl. Mardani Raya in Cempaka Putih, Central Jakarta, on March 30 this year soon after he had accepted the bribe. On the same day the KPK also arrested Adner at East Jakarta District Court.
The case against judge Ibrahim is not the first of its kind. In 2006, South Jakarta District Court jailed one of its judges, Herman Allositandi, for four years and six months, for extorting money from a witness in a graft trial. And it is widely believed the two cases are only the tip of the iceberg as both Ibrahim and Herman are considered as “samples” only.
It is indeed difficult to prove or blatantly accuse many Indonesian judges of accepting bribes prior to issuing court verdicts unless they are caught red-handed, as was the case with judge Ibrahim. However, such crimes are often evident when judges issue verdicts that are far less than penalties demanded by prosecutors.
It is true that judges should and must always base their verdicts on their conscience, as the law on the Indonesian justice system stipulates. But their independence in interpreting the laws prior to issuing verdicts should not completely run foul of common sense and the general public’s sense of justice.
It is also true that judges must not be the sole party to blame whenever “abnormal” verdicts are issued, because such weak court rulings could have also originated from weak charges established by police and/or prosecutors.
However, the fact that other parties might be involved in determining weak or controversial court verdicts should not prevent the Indonesian judiciary from reforming itself and improving its image. And the verdict on judge Ibrahim could be its starting point.
