Tag Archives: Judicial Commission

Supreme Court to Judicial Commission: “Not All Controversial Decisions Involve Bribery” …

… and therefore you shouldn’t say anything negative about judicial decision-making!

Koran Sindo, the Indonesian evening newspaper, has been reporting on the feuding (perseteruan) between the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court. In today’s paper they have a nice graphic highlighting the main points of tension between the two institutions, which I’ve inserted below.  On Saturday the newspaper reported that Supreme Court spokesperson, Djoko Sarwoko, reminded the Judicial Commission not to interfere in judicial authority.  He suggested the Commissions efforts to publicise its views about unusual decisions was undermining judicial independence.  It seems pre-mautre to claim that the Commission is undermining judicial independence; indeed, it’s quite funny when this is the argument:

“Komisioner boleh curiga, tetapi jangan menggiring publik agar berpikiran sama dengan komisioner. Tidak semua putusan kontroversi berlatar belakang suap. KY jangan bertindak seperti KPK. Kasihan hakim yang memiliki integritas, namanya digulirkan dan diadili di media,” ujarnya di Jakarta kemarin.

I can’t help thinking that the Court is hiding behind an important, but by no means absolute, principal of judicial independence (judicial independence needs to be balanced with some form of judicial accountability); interestingly, in the same way that the press in the UK (and Prime Minister David Cameron) are, in my view, hiding behind the principal of press freedom to avoid attempts to strengthen press regulation.  Indeed, if the Judicial Commission was unable to make any public statements about complaints its received it would seriously undermine its effectiveness because, as I’ve noted before (here), the Judicial Commission has little power besides its ability to generate public pressure on the Supreme Court to account for its decisions.

The graphic from Koran Sindo:

Judicial Commission-Supreme Court Feuding

Judicial Commission-Supreme Court Feuding

Links to the articles: MA Nilai KY Campuri Kewenangan Hakim and MA-KY Jangan Saling Tuding-Hasil Sidang MKH Hakim Agung Achmad Yamanie Jadi Bukti.

Tagged ,

Judicial Commission Statistics: 2005-2012

Tempo.co summarises the Judicial Commission’s performance statistics from August 2005 until June 2012:

  • 6,634 citizen complaints
  • 3,602 of which were complete and therefore registered
  • 1,415 of which were acted upon
  • 148 judges recommended for disciplinary action
  • 81 recommendations accepted by the Supreme Court
  • 67 recommendations rejected.

Article here: Komisi Yudisial Baru Periksa 570 Hakim Nakal.

Tagged

Judicial Commission Smells Bribery in Corruption Courts

The Head of the Judicial Commission, Eman Suparman, admitted acquittals in Corruption Courts due to bribes:

Komisi Yudisial menemukan transaksi suap yang dilakukan hakim di Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang menjatuhkan vonis bebas terhadap para terdakwa kasus korupsi. “Mereka meminta uang kepada para advokat dalam menangani kasus-kasus korupsi yang kemudian dibebaskan,” kata Ketua Komisi Yudisial Eman Suparman setelah memberikan orasi dalam acara Rapat Koordinasi Nasional Ikatan Advokat Indonesia di Semarang kemarin.

Eman menambahkan, testimoni temuan itu berasal dari hakim yang terlibat. Saat ditanya berapa aliran dana dari pengacara terdakwa kasus korupsi itu, Eman menolak menjawab. “Saya tak mau menyampaikan itu. Penegak hukum yang berhak bertanya. Tak boleh keluar dari mulut saya,” kata dia.

Eman juga menolak menyebutkan nama pengacara yang memberikan uang kepada hakim di Pengadilan Tipikor Semarang itu. “Pokoknya kasus vonis bebas (di Pengadilan Tipikor Semarang) semuanya bernuansa suap”. Eman enggan menyebutkan siapa saja empat hakim yang meminta uang kepada advokat itu. “Anda kan sudah tahu,” kata dia.

Ungated version available at the excellent KP2KKN media archive: Komisi Yudisial: Vonis Bebas Terdakwa Korupsi Berbau Suap.

Tagged ,

Supreme Court Disciplines Judge Lilik

Hukumonline.com reported that the the Supreme Court will continue with Judge Lilik’s promotion to a remote court in North Sulawesi but will withdraw her accreditation to serve on corruption cases.

Disorot banyak kalangan terkait maraknya vonis bebas di Pengadilan Tipikor Semarang, Mahkamah Agung (MA) akhirnya bersikap tegas. MA memutuskan untuk mencabut Surat Keputusan (SK) atas nama Lilik Nuraeni sebagai hakim Pengadilan Tipikor Semarang. Tidak hanya dicabut SK-nya, Lilik juga dipindahkan ke Pengadilan Negeri (PN) Tondano, Sulawesi Utara. MA juga memutuskan tidak akan mengangkat Lilik sebagai hakim Pengadilan Tipikor dimanapun dia bertugas.

“Tidak ada perkara tipikor, tidak akan keluarkan SK Tipikor (atas nama Lilik Nuraeni). Di sana (PN Tondano) Lilik tidak boleh mengadili perkara tipikor. SK hakim tipikor sudah mati di Semarang, harus tidak diangkat lagi, harus ada sanksi,” ujar Juru Bicara MA, Djoko Sarwoko, Senin (25/6).

Dengan pencabutan SK ini, Lilik sudah tidak berhak atas tunjangan sebagai hakim Pengadilan Tipikor. Namun, hakim yang diduga melakukan pelanggaran kode etik oleh Komisi Yudisial (KY) ini tetap mendapatkan kenaikan jabatan alias promosi di PN Tondano (kelas IB) sebagai Wakil Ketua PN. Padahal, saat bertugas di PN Semarang (kelas IA) Lilik hanya hakim biasa.

Article here: MA Cabut SK Pengangkatan Hakim Tipikor Semarang.

Tagged , , ,

Supreme Court Examines 4 Judges

Kompas.com reported that the Supreme Court examined four judges from the Corruption Court in Semarang:

“Saya sudah tanya Kepala Badan Pengawas, hakim-hakim itu sudah diperiksa 14 hari lalu. Tetapi hasilnya belum ada, karena pemeriksaan waktu itu sempat tertunda sebab salah satu hakimnya berhalangan,” kata Ridwan, Selasa (19/6/2012).

Ridwan Mansyur didn’t confirm with Judge Lilik, the most controversial judges on the Court, was to be moved to the North Sulawesi:

Ditanya apakah benar Lilik telah dipindahkan ke Pengadilan Negeri Tondano, Sulawesi Selatan [Utara], dan kini menjabat Ketua PN, Ridwan mengaku belum mengetahui.

Pengadilan Tipikor Semarang dikenal sering membebaskan terdakwa korupsi. Setidaknya terdapat tujuh kasus korupsi yang dibebaskan, enam di antaranya dilakukan oleh majelis yang dipimpin hakim yang sama.

Original article here: MA Periksa Empat Hakim Tipikor Semarang.

Tagged , , ,

KP2KKN Reports Judge Lilik to Judicial Commission

After acquitting corruption suspects in five cases, the NGO KP2KKN reported Judge Lilik Nuraini of the Semarang Corruption Court to the Judicial Commission:

Komite Penyelidikan dan Pemberantasan Korupsi Kolusi dan Nepotisme (KP2KKN) Jateng berencana melaporkan Lilik ke Komisi Yudisial (KY).

”KP2KKN akan mengirim surat ke KY dan mengawasi setiap kasus yang ditangani oleh hakim Lilik Nuraini,” kata Koordinator Divisi Monitoring dan Kebijakan KP2KKN  Eko Haryanto, Jumat (20/4).

As reported in Suara MerdekaHakim Diadukan ke KY, via KP2KKN’s media blog here.

Tagged , ,

Judicial Commission: 274 Complaints Received in Two Months

Another article on the Judicial Commission noting that it received 274 complaints about the performance of judges in the first two months of 2012.   The article notes that from 2005 to 2011 the Commission received 6,090 complaints but only recommended sanctions in 134 cases.  This would suggest that the two months are double the average over the past six years, although I’d imagine there were relatively few reports in the first years.  This article from Suara Merdeka (here):

The Judicial Commission (KY) in the first two months of 2012 acknowledged that it received 274 reports from the public on alleged violations committed by judges in the district State Courts, provincial High Courts, the Corruption Courts, and the others in Indonesia. This statistics were provided by KY spokesperson, Asep Rahmat Fajar, on Thursday (1/3).

He said that, in addition to receiving these reports, during the month of January 2012 until February 2012, the KY made inquiries into seven judges and 31 witnesses. “It has implemented a one-time Assembly of Honourable Judges (MKH),” said Asep.

As is known, from August 2005 until December 2011, KY received 6,090 reports from the public (excluding duplicate reports) on the behavior of judges and has issued 134 sanction recommendation.

Of that number, 79 sanction recommendations were sent to the MKH or proposed to the Supreme Court (MA). However, 55 recommendations were rejected because they involved the technical aspects of judicial decision-making although it has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

Komisi Yudisial (KY) dalam dua bulan pertama tahun 2012 mengakui telah menerima 274 laporan dari masyarakat, terkait dugaan pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh Hakim di Pengadilan Negeri, Pengadilan Tinggi, Pengadilan Tipikor dan yang lainnya di seluruh Indonesia. Hal ini disampaikan Juru Bicara (Jubir) KY, Asep Rahmat Fajar, Kamis (1/3).

Dikatakannya, selain menerima laporan tersebut, bahwa selama bulan Januari 2012 sampai Februari 2012, telah dilakukan permintaan keterangan kepada 7 hakim dan 31 saksi. “Telah dilaksanakan satu kali sidang Majelis Kehormatan Hakim (MKH),” papar Asep.

Seperti diketahui, sejak Agustus 2005 sampai Desember 2011, KY telah menerima 6090 laporan masyarakat (di luar tembusan) mengenai perilaku hakim dan telah mengeluarkan 134 rekomendasi sanksi.

Kemudian, dari jumlah tersebut, sebanyak 79 rekomendasi diterima dengan dijatuhi sanksi dan diajukan ke MKH atau diambil alih oleh Mahkamah Agung (MA). Tetapi, 55 rekomendasi di tolak, karena dianggap termasuk ranah teknis yudisial walaupun telah dijatuhi sanksi oleh MA.

The low percentage of reports that lead to sanction recommendations and sanctions themselves suggests that those reporting to not fully understand the types of issues that this institutional mechanism can address, that the KY lacks the resources to properly follow-up on reports, or that the KY and the MA are too lenient on the judges.

h/t KP2KKN’s media archive blog, here.

Tagged

Judicial Commission: Weak Investigations and Indictments Facilitate Corruption Acquittals

Some interesting comments yesterday from the Head of Judicial Commission’s monitoring body, Suparman Marzuki, acknowledging weak investigations (penyidikan) and prosecution (penuntutan) as a key reason for acquittals in corruption cases.  He also acknowledged that the Commission does not have sufficient resources to properly monitor the courts across the country.  The comments from detik.com (here):

“There are many possibilities the influence a judge’s ruling,” the Head of Monitoring and Investigation of the Judicial Commission, Suparman Marzuki, told AFP on Monday (05/03/2012).

According Suparman, acquittal may result from a weak investigation. In addition, the preparation of a weak indictments is also an important factor in deciding court’s decision.

“But there may also be mistakes in the judge’s ruling,” he continued.

In addition, Suparman acknoweledged that the lack of resources meant the agency [Judicial Commission] is unable to cover all regions of Indonesia.

“Ada banyak kemungkinan yang terjadi dalam putusan hakim,” kata Ketua Bidang Pengawasan Hakim dan Investigasi Komisi Yudisial, Suparman Marzuki, kepada detikcom, Senin (5/3/2012). 

Menurut Suparman, putusan bebas bisa saja diakibatkan dari proses penyidikan yang lemah. Selain itu, proses penyusunan surat dakwaan yang tidak kuat juga menjadi faktor penting majelis dalam memutuskan seseorang.

“Tapi boleh jadi ada yang nggak beres dalam putusan hakim,” lanjutnya. 

Meski begitu, Suparman mengakui, jika kendala utama dari lembaganya adalah kekurangan sumber daya yang mampu meng-cover seluruh kawasan di Indonesia.

h/t KP2KKN’s media archive blog, here.

Tagged ,

The 8 Points Removed from the Judicial Code of Conduct

A few days ago I noted that the Supreme Court had determined to remove 8 points from the Ethics Code for judges — see here.  I dug up the codes today.  Those from section eight relate to discipline, whereas those from section ten relate to professionalism.  These are two substantive sections of the Code.  Here’s a translation of the (former) articles, some parts of which were very difficult to render in English:

8. Discipline

Discipline requires that upholding norms or rules is believed to be part of a higher calling to carry out the mandate and trust of justice seekers. Discipline will encourage the formation of a dutiful approach to one’s responsibilities, sincerity in devotion and setting an example, and respect for the mandate entrusted to them.

Application:

8.1. Judges are obliged to know and perform tasks in accordance with laws and regulations, particularly the laws of procedure, in order to apply the law correctly and fulfill a sense of justice to every seeker of justice.

8.2. Judges must respect the rights of the parties in the judicial process and seek the examination of the case in a simple, rapid and low cost way.

8.3. Judges must assist the parties and try to overcome all obstacles and hurdles to realize justice that is simple, fast and low cost in accordance with the laws and regulations.

8.4. The chairing judge or a judge appointed as such, shall allocate cases to the panel of judges in a fair and equitable manner, and avoid allocation of cases to judge who have a conflict of interest.

10. Professionalism

Professionalism is underpinned by a moral stance that is determined to carry one’s chosen work with earnestness, backed by the expertise as the basis of knowledge, skill and insight. A professional attitude encourages the formation of personal rectitude and to strive to improve one’s knowledge and performance in order to reach the highest quality of work, effectiveness and efficiency.

Application:

10.1. Judges must take steps to maintain and improve their knowledge, skills and personal qualities so as to perform judicial duties properly.

10.2. Judges must diligently carry out their administrative responsibilities in collaboration with judges and other court officials in running the administration of justice.

10.3. Judges shall give priority to judicial duties over other activities professionally.

10.4. Judges must avoid mistakes in their decisions and not ignore the facts that could condemn the accused or parties, or deliberately make favorable consideration of the accused or parties in cases under adjudication.

8. BERDISIPLIN TINGGI

Disiplin bermakna ketaatan pada norma-norma atau kaidah-kaidah yang diyakini sebagai panggilan luhur untuk mengemban amanah serta kepercayaan masyarakat pencari keadilan. Disiplin tinggi akan mendorong terbentuknya pribadi yang tertib di dalam melaksanakan tugas, ikhlas dalam pengabdian dan berusaha untuk menjadi teladan dalam lingkungannya, serta tidak menyalahgunakan amanah yang dipercayakan kepadanya.

Penerapan :

8.1.Hakim berkewajiban mengetahui dan mendalami serta melaksanakan tugas pokok sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, khususnya hukum acara, agar dapat menerapkan hukum secara benar dan dapat memenuhi rasa keadilan bagi setiap pencari keadilan.

8.2. Hakim harus menghormati hak-hak para pihak dalam proses peradilan dan berusaha mewujudkan pemeriksaan perkara secara sederhana, cepat dan biaya ringan.

8.3. Hakim harus membantu para pihak dan berusaha mengatasi segala hambatan dan rintangan untuk mewujudkan peradilan yang sederhana, cepat dan biaya ringan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.

8.4.Ketua Pengadilan atau Hakim yang ditunjuk, harus mendistribusikan perkara kepada Majelis Hakim secara adil dan merata, serta menghindari pendistribusian perkara kepada Hakim yang memiliki konflik kepentingan.

10. BERSIKAP PROFESIONAL

Profesional bermakna suatu sikap moral yang dilandasi oleh tekad untuk melaksanakan pekerjaan yang dipilihnya dengan kesungguhan, yang didukung oleh keahlian atas dasar pengetahuan, keterampilan dan wawasan luas. Sikap profesional akan mendorong terbentuknya pribadi yang senantiasa menjaga dan mempertahankan mutu pekerjaan, serta berusaha untuk meningkatkan pengetahuan dan kinerja, sehingga tercapai setinggi-tingginya mutu hasil pekerjaan, efektif dan efisien.

Penerapan :

10.1. Hakim harus mengambil langkah-langkah untuk memelihara dan meningkatkan pengetahuan, keterampilan dan kualitas pribadi untuk dapat melaksanakan tugas-tugas peradilan secara baik.

10.2. Hakim harus secara tekun melaksanakan tanggung jawab administratif dan bekerja sama dengan para Hakim dan pejabat pengadilan lain dalam menjalankan administrasi peradilan.

10.3. Hakim wajib mengutamakan tugas yudisialnya di atas kegiatan yang lain secara professional.

10.4. Hakim wajib menghindari terjadinya kekeliruan dalam membuat keputusan, atau mengabaikan fakta yang dapat menjerat terdakwa atau para pihak atau dengan sengaja membuat pertimbangan yamg menguntungkan terdakwa atau para pihak dalam mengadili suatu perkara yang ditanganinya.

Download the Code of Conduct here: Kode Etik Hakim

Tagged , ,

Supreme Court Removes 8 Points from its Ethics Code

Tempo reported last week that the Supreme Court has removed eight points from its Ethics Code (link here).  The  Ethics Code was jointly promulgated by the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission on 8 April 2009 and is the basis for the Judicial Commissions monitoring of judges.  The Judicial Commission expressed disappointment with the decision and Asep Rahmat, spokesperson for the Judicial Commission, indicated that it was prepared to work with the Supreme Court to ensure the Ethics Code continue to comply with the Bangalore Principals of the Judicial Conduct.

The Judicial Commission was disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court to revoke eight points from the Ethical Code of Judges, one of which contains a prohibition against ignoring the trial facts. Judicial Commission spokesman, Asep Rahmat Fajar, expressed respect for the verdict but disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court.

“Hopefully, KY [the Judicial Commssion] can coordinate with the Supreme Court for the reformulation of the material to ensure its accordance with the “2002 Bangalore Principles ” of Judicial Conduct,” said Asep by telephone, Tuesday, February 14, 2012.

Komisi Yudisial kecewa dengan putusan Mahkamah Agung mencabut delapan poin Kode Etik Hakim, yang salah satunya berisi larangan mengabaikan fakta persidangan. Juru bicara KY, Asep Rahmat Fajar, menyatakan menghormati putusan, meski sebenarnya kecewa dengan pilihan MA.

“Harapannya, KY bisa berkoordinasi dengan MA untuk reformulasi materi sehingga masih sesuai dengan “Bangalore Principles 2002″ tentang Kode Etik Hakim, tapi tetap memperhatikan concern kemarin,” kata Asep melalui telepon, Selasa, 14 Februari 2012.

The following codes were removed: 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 as well as 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, dan 10.4.  I’ll try to dig the specifics this week.

h/t KP2KKN’s media blog, here.

 

Tagged , ,