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.
Promotion of judges that sentenced Ahok ‘questionable’: Judicial Commission
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Non-active Jakarta governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama attends the final hearing in his blasphemy trial at the North Jakarta District Court on Tuesday. (Antara/Pool/Sigid Kurniawan via JP)
T
he Judicial Commission (KY) has said all parties should question the Supreme Court’s (MA) decision to promote three of the five judges that handled the blasphemy case against Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama at the North Jakarta District Court.
KY spokesperson Farid Wajdi said the promotion of the three judges, including presiding judge Dwiarso Budi Santiarto, raised questions, because it came only one day after the court had declared the non-active governor guilty of blasphemy in a hearing on Tuesday.
“It’s understandable if everyone has suspicions about [the promotion],” Farid said on Friday.
Dwiarso and his colleague Abdul Rosyad were promoted to positions at the Denpasar High Court and the Palu High Court, respectively. Meanwhile, Jupriyadi was promoted to head the Bandung District Court.
The North Jakarta District Court stated that, based on evidence and testimonies, all criminal elements of the blasphemy charges against Ahok were fulfilled.
Farid said what the public had to pay attention to was whether their promotion met the formal requirements for promotion, as stipulated in Supreme Court Chief Justice Decree No. 139/2013.
“It would be better if the MA was transparent and would open to public the track record of the three judges, so that everyone could understand whether or not they were promoted on a regular basis in accordance with the MA decree,” Farid said.
“Hence, there would be no more public speculation that the promotion [amounted to a payoff] and the MA could prove it was in line with procedures.” (hol/ebf)
