O

ne major obstacle to reform of the country’s judicial system — represented by the Supreme Court as the country’s highest judicial institution — is the court’s refusal to be supervised by an external supervisory body as part of a control system.

And end to the Supreme Court’s opposition to supervision from an external body, specifically the Judicial Commission, is considered imperative if long-overdue reform is to take place.

One way to achieve judicial reform is through learning about “best practices” that have been implemented in other countries such as Turkey, Australia and the US, according to Judicial Commission chair Aidul Fitriciada Azhari.

“In September, the commission plans to hold an international symposium that aims to compare our country’s judicial system with those of other countries and simultaneously learn from them,” he said.

Aidul noted that in Turkey, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors had been able to dismiss more than 6,000 judges after the recent coup, proving its executive power.

“In many other countries, the supreme court and judicial commission go hand in hand. They share responsibilities,” he said during a recent visit to The Jakarta Post.

As an example, the judicial commissions of Australia and the Netherlands use the term “legal error” to include other things besides judges’ misconduct.

“In many countries, a legal error can also include unprofessional conduct, unlike in Indonesia,” Aidul said, adding that this would mean any kind of unprofessional conduct detected by the commission on the part of judges would be punishable.

Unprofessional conduct may include the use by judges of laws that have been annulled in their arguments while handling a case, or misquoting a prosecution witness as a defense witness.

These types of misconduct, commonplace in the Indonesian judicial system, show a lack of professionalism and raise questions about the possibility of judges conducting misconduct deliberately in order to favor one party in a legal case, Aidul said.

“Tension between the commission and the court always rests on the argument between the terms ‘judicial methods’ and ‘code of ethics’, used by the Supreme Court, and ‘legal error’ and ‘misconduct’ used by the Judicial Commission,” noted commission deputy chair Sukma Violetta.

As evidence, Sukma cited that the commission had recently recommended that the Supreme Court sanction 105 judges; only 12 of the recommendations were followed up. Sixty of the recommendations were ignored, while 12 judges were given only light sanctions.

Supreme Court spokesman Suhadi dismissed the allegations. “That’s not the case; all of the Judicial Commission’s recommendations have been followed up,” he insisted.

Corruption at the Supreme Court shows no signs of abating, with a number of officials implicated recently.

Supreme Court secretary Nurhadi was earlier this year named a suspect by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for helping a Lippo Group subsidiary, PT First Media, to win a case review plea against Malaysia-based pay-TV operator Astro at the highest court.

Suhadi, however, claimed that the Supreme Court was transparent and closely monitored all staff.

He added that the court had dismissed dozens of staff collared by the KPK.

“Who can withstand the KPK’s power now? They keep pointing the finger at us. Why don’t they check other institutions? I’m not sure other institutions aren’t engaged in [corruption] as well,” Suhadi argued. (win)