A

judge identified as S was recently caught red-handed receiving bribes from a lawyer, who is identified as PW, by the Corruption Eradication Commission. The commission’s investigators found Rp 250 million in cash in various currencies at the judge’s house.

It was unfortunate for Indonesia’s judiciary that the arrest came just a few days after chief justice Harifin Tumpa announced that a 2010 survey conducted by a US institution had found that only 70 percent of the public were satisfied with courts’ performance.

The judiciary has been implementing reforms since 1999, costing trillions of rupiah. The budget for these reforms came not only from the state, but also donor countries and international finance organizations.

A series of questions arises following the recent arrest: Why do judges receive bribes? Does the recently increased take-home pay for judges not correlate with corruption eradication? Can the courts, as the last bastion of justice, be trusted in delivering justice without monetary intervention? Have the judiciary reforms failed?

The answers to these questions may lead to a perception that Indonesia’s judiciary reform is doomed to fail. However, it is not fair to conclude that the judiciary reform has failed only due to one incident or two.

It should be understood that in reforming the judiciary, there are two components that need to be overhauled. First reforming the system and the second the personnel.

Over the last 10 years, judiciary reform in Indonesia has put an
emphasis on the system. In this
area the efforts have born fruits, to some extent.

One of the most important system changes is a workable mechanism to supervise and punish individual judges suspected or found guilty of committing corrupt practices. This is because corrupt judges will always be around, either in developing or stable legal systems.

A swift response from the chief justice a day after the arrest of judge S was an example of the changing system. In addition, no measures were taken to attempt to cover up the incident. Furthermore, the Central Jakarta District Court and the Supreme Court have been cooperating with the KPK investigators.

While the system reforms have been successful, this is not the case with the personnel reform. Success does not come easily in this area. Judiciary reform does not readily prevent judges from committing corrupt practices.

Reforming personnel is indeed the crux of a credible judiciary. Reform should address the issue of good and bad judges, which is complicated and difficult. Bad judges can only be dismissed and removed if there is solid evidence and they have been found guilty.

Bad judges need to be punished administratively for three reasons. First, the sanctions will show to the public a zero tolerance of bad judges. Second, it will serve as a deterrent for other judges. Lastly, it is needed to build the integrity and credibility of the judiciary force.

Reforming personnel has been seen as a challenge since there is also competition between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission over who has the authority to supervise the conduct of judges.

Reforming personnel also has been difficult because of the existing recruitment process, which is not free from corrupt practices. Furthermore, the process has not been able to recruit enough judges with integrity and exceptional intelligence.

Most fresh graduates from the best law schools refrain from entering the judiciary for two reasons. First, they feel they will be underpaid. Second, in their early career they would likely be assigned to remote areas across Indonesia.

The arrest of judge S should serve as a wake-up call for Indonesia in realizing that judiciary reform must emphasize personnel reform. To this end, punishing and recruiting personnel are two important components that must change.