T

hat public faith in the Constitutional Court has declined to the lowest level is undeniable. It all happened after the Court’s ethics board found Court chief Arief Hidayat guilty of breaching the code of ethics for the second time.

In the most recent case, the board discovered Arief had lobbied House of Representatives politicians prior to his selection as Court justice for a second term last December, which should have made him unfit for his current post. Previously in 2016, the board had convicted him of committing an ethics violation for sending a letter to the Attorney General asking for special treatment for his relative who works in the Attorney General’s Office.

Analogous to a soccer game, a player who receives a second yellow card in a match will automatically get his marching orders. Additionally, the player will automatically receive a one-match ban. If the fouls are deemed serious the ban may be extended to two or three matches.

However, this is not the case of the Constitutional Court. As in the first case, the ethics board only imposed a light sentence, a formal reprimand, defying mounting demands from Muhammadiyah and corruption watchdogs GAK, Madrasah Anti Korupsi and ICW for Arief to be dismissed as both Court chief and justice for undermining the Court’s dignity.

The lenient punishment only reveals a lack of legal framework within Constitutional Court law when dealing with ethical violations allegedly committed by Court justices. In this sense, there is no clear mechanism as to whether a justice, who is found guilty of violating the code of ethics, must quit the Court or not. As in the Arief case, the board did not require him to step down simply because the law does not ask it to do so.

However, in coping with violations of ethics we, including state actor, civil society and private sector, cannot only depend on and comply with existing regulations. Moral standards, integrity values and ethical norms should be an inseparable part of public institutions and officials with or without regulations.

For the Constitutional Court, its dignity matters because of its duty as the guardian of the Constitution. Court justices, who are entrusted to protect the Constitution as the foundation of democracy and state principles, must therefore be morally clean.

It does mean that even a small breach of code of ethics will render a justice no longer eligible to perform the job. In addition, in their conduct each Court justice has to display his or her vast horizon and knowledge.

The combination is a basic requirement for Constitutional Court justices. The question now is having been twice found guilty of code of ethics violations does Arief still deserve the Constitutional Court chief post? The answer is clear, a big NO.

Actually, the Constitutional Court has lost its main capital, namely public trust, to carry out its main duty as guardian of the Constitution as a result of the moral defect of its chief. People may now doubt the Court’s capability to render justice.

To make matter worse, the Court also has a constitutional mandate of adjudicating disputes involving candidates contesting regional and national elections. The fact that Arief escaped serious punishment discloses a huge gap between reality and the public’s high expectations for the Court to take the fairest decision for disputing parties.

Because lobbying was involved prior to Arief’s re-election there are fears the practice will be replicated when he takes part in the adjudication of electoral disputes. The lobby itself has reduced Arief’s qualification from a statesman to politician.

The ignorant attitude towards the importance of upholding the ethics of public officials provides an opportunity for political adventurers to lobby the Constitutional Court to decide in their favor. It is likely the Court will handle a lot disputes over election results.

The Court’s dignity has been torn down after its former chief, Akil Mochtar, and former justice Patrialis Akbar were arrested and eventually convicted of graft. Before it is too late and the Court’s reputation diminishes further, it is better for the rest of the justices to file a motion of no confidence in Arief. Perhaps such move will force him to step down from his position, which will provide a momentum to restore public confidence in the Court.
____________________________

The writer is the coordinator of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW).