T

he judiciary is not only perceived to be mired by graft allegations and a shortage of human resources, it is also seen as powerless, as Supreme Court rulings are being ignored by the very officials meant to enforce them.

As the highest judicial institution, the Supreme Court’s decisions are meant to be final and binding, but some lawyers say that sometimes they are regarded as anything but.

David Tobing, a lawyer who often represents public consumers, told The Jakarta Post recently that the Supreme Court’s rulings on civil and administrative cases did not guarantee the legal certainty. “It takes years before the rulings are enforced.”

He cited a court dispute that he won three years ago over the ownership of a building in Kuningan, South Jakarta. However, the ruling did not immediately end the dispute, he said. “I won the case in 2004, but for four years the party that lost the case refused to vacate the building,” he said. “They even hired thugs to guard the building and the police did nothing to enforce the court’s decision.”

Due to weak law enforcement, such delays in enforcing rulings are believed to be common. In many land dispute cases, the court needs police officers to safeguard the process of confiscating or evicting the properties of losing parties, but they often face resistance from angry mobs that are typically comprised of thugs.

David criticized the judicial system for its lack of monitoring mechanisms to ensure that citizens who won cases at the court received their rights. He is concerned with the lack of enforcement, as he is still pushing the court to uphold its ruling that favors him in a dispute against the government over the recent tainted milk controversy.

The Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), the Health Ministry and the Food and Drug Monitoring Agency have refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling from January when it instructed the three institutions to release the list of contaminated formula milk brands from the IPB’s 2003–2006 research.

They also refused to pay the Rp 2 million (US$234) in court fees as a consequence of losing the case during a warning (aanmaning) session at the Central Jakarta District Court in mid-July. After the warning, a plaintiff may pursue confiscation.

“What can we do? There is no mechanism to coerce them to obey the ruling; it will be weird to confiscate, let’s say, a desk and chair from the IPB,” David said. “So, it depends on the government to ensure justice. In this case, the Health Ministry is a representation of the government.”

Due to the lack of enforcement, some who have won cases but have yet to benefit have turned to other institutions for support. “All I can do now is to keep on fighting. We are lucky that the National Commission on Human Rights [Komnas HAM] supports us,” he said. Just recently, the commission told the IPB, the Health Ministry and the BPOM to obey the Supreme Court ruling, saying that ignoring the court violated human rights because the public had a right to the information on the contaminated milk.

David is not alone. The congregation of the Indonesian Christian Church of Taman Yasmin in Bogor, West Java, has also turned to the National Ombudsman Commission, which ordered the Bogor administration to revoke its ban on the church. The Ombudsman said that the ban was a mistake, negligent of the law and contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In January, the Supreme Court rejected the Bogor administration’s request to uphold the closure of the church, but the Bogor administration still has not complied with the order.

“Even though our judicial system is weak in executing its rulings, that is no excuse [for ignoring them],” said Bona Sigalingging, a church spokesperson. “The government has failed to ensure legal certainty for its citizens.”

Dian Rositawati, of judiciary watchdog the Institute for Assessment and Advocacy of Independent Judiciary (LeIP), slammed the Supreme Court for lacking special bodies to execute its orders and to monitor the enforcement of orders. “The ones in charge of executing civil orders are bailiffs and the heads of the courts, but there is no strict monitoring of the process,” she said.

According to Supreme Court data, there were 6,820 cassation cases in 2010 that were left over from previous years to be solved, while the court also received 10,905 new cassation cases. The Supreme Court has heard 11,246 of a total 17,725 cases in 2010, leaving 6,479 to be heard this year.

Among the cassation cases, there are 6,296 civil cassation cases, of which 3,695 have been ruled on by the Supreme Court. The justices have also ruled on 569 of a total 865 state administration cassation cases in the same year. However, the court did not disclose how many rulings have been enacted.
Supreme Court justice and court spokesman Hatta Ali said that enforcing Supreme Court rulings was “the duty of the district courts”.