Kafil Yamin – Since the beginning of last year, the heads of no fewer than 29 provincial, district and municipal administrations have been arrested on corruption charges, with 19 being convicted in court. In Indonesia's push toward eradicating corruption, they likely will not be the last.
Dozens of other allegedly tainted governors, district chiefs and mayors may be next, according to Indonesia Corruption Watch, which has investigated 36 corruption cases involving a total of Rp 1.6 trillion ($160 million). And these do not even scratch the surface of other possible lawbreakers in the private sector, banking, central government and the House of Representatives.
That said, in the past year we have seen some big-time arrests and convictions by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), including senior Attorney General's Office prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan; businesswoman Artalyta Suryani; the former governor of the central bank, Burhanuddin Abdullah; President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's in-law Aulia Pohan, who is a former Bank Indonesia deputy governor; and several acting and former lawmakers.
Since corruption is endemic within the central government, provincial governments and legislatures, and can involve powerful private businessmen as well, there have long been fears of shadowy figures fighting back against state-sanctioned anticorruption efforts.
The question is, since the arrest of KPK chairman Antasari Azhar, who will soon face trial for allegedly masterminding a murder, have those fears finally materialized?
Some campaigners say the antigraft drive has stalled, or a distracted KPK is at least slowing down. For one thing, it has to deal with the fallout from Antasari's suspension and subsequent claims of KPK officials themselves taking bribes. For another, elements within the National Police, Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) and the House have been accused of being bent on taming the KPK.
Last month, police and auditing officials complained to Yudhoyono about the KPK's seeming omnipotence and that the commission was usurping their authority. In response, the president called for better coordination and cooperation among the three institutions.
Some analysts said there was more to that July meeting at the State Palace and that there was a concerted effort to undermine the KPK. Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas, a former KPK deputy chairman, said, "It's difficult to prove the plot, but it smells very fishy."
He blamed the House for its continued failure to pass legislation establishing a permanent Anti-Corruption Court and new anticorruption measures.
"Two years of delay on passing the Anti-Corruption Court bill, then all of a sudden, without warning, the government comes forward with the amendment to the [2002] Corruption Law that carries articles reducing the KPK's power," Erry said.
He also pointed out the very public handling of Antasari's case by the National Police and media, which has also affected the reputation of the KPK. "I concede that Antasari should face the law, but the police seem to have overdone the case and the media reports have blown the issue out of proportion," he said.
In 2006, the Constitutional Court gave the central government and the House three years to pass legislation to establish a permanent Anti-Corruption Court. The reason why the Anti-Corruption Court bill is still languishing in political limbo, however, as the Minister of Justice and Human Rights Andi Matalatta described, is because the country could not adopt a dual court system in trying corruption cases.
If passed into law, the bill would mandate that all corruption cases be tried in an anticorruption court. Currently, both the state courts and the current Anti-Corruption Court handle graft cases, but the latter, which has a 100-percent conviction record, only operates in Jakarta and for high-level cases.
Graft trials handled in the regular state courts paint a painful picture of efforts to combat corruption. A survey by ICW found that in the 196 corruption cases tried by the state courts between January and July 2008, more than half of the defendants were acquitted.
Analysts say that if the Anti-Corruption Court bill is passed, it must include articles establishing anticorruption courts down to the district level. Indonesia has 450 districts and mayoralties, but a classic problem – or excuse – may prevent the special courts being set up in all of them: lack of funding.
"Frankly speaking, the government does not have money to build such a number of courts," said Attorney General Hendarman Supandji.
Special anticorruption courts would require ad hoc judges who are not listed as government employees. Under the 2002 law on the KPK, which was used to create the current Anti-Corruption Court, graft trials should be presided over by five judges – three of them being ad hoc judges. If applied to regional anticorruption courts, this would mean higher budget allocations.
And while state-employed judges could also work on other cases, ad hoc judges would only be allowed to work on corruption cases. According to Matalatta, this would lead to more inefficiency.
"In the districts, we don't have corruption cases every day," the justice minister said. "So the ad hoc judges will be idle while we need judges badly in other criminal cases."
Matalatta said these and other issues caused the delay in passing the legislation on a permanent Anti-Corruption Court. To make matters worse, the central government has also proposed a draft for operational regulations for the permanent court, even while the legislation still languishes in the House.
"I couldn't see the reasoning behind why the amendment to the Corruption Law was given higher priority than the Anti-Corruption Court itself, but then I found some clues that it was designed to subdue the KPK," Erry said.
The Anti-Corruption Court bill changes the current composition of judges in corruption trials to three state-employed judges and two ad hoc judges. Article 27 of the draft mandates that the Supreme Court and the state courts have full authority to appoint judges to the Anti-Corruption Court.
"This is clearly a move to make the KPK insignificant," said Denny Indrayana, a law expert at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta. "With the unchallenged power they have, the Supreme Court and the state court can set up judge lineup as they wish by favoring state judges."
As a result, academics now fear a setback in tackling the country's deep-rooted corruption.
"If we don't move forward with the KPK, then all the efforts we have made will be in vain," said Romli Atmasasmita, a criminologist at Padjadjaran University in Bandung, West Java. "There's no bigger loss than this. The KPK is an invaluable asset in fighting corruption."
If the Anti-Corruption Court bill is not passed this year, all corruption cases will be handed over to the state courts, which have been criticized as incompetent and, unlike the current Anti-Corruption Court, susceptible to bribery. "The postponement of the Anti-Corruption Court bill is a big scandal," Romli asserted.
Erry said that while Indonesia would survive without the KPK and the Anti-Corruption Court, "It's not the Indonesia we want. It will be an Indonesia worse than... when we started combating corruption a decade ago. "Public service will remain bad, the economy will remain inefficient, poverty will even be higher and as a nation, we won't move forward," he said. "It will be worse because we will have spent so much energy, funds and time for nothing."
But public demand for accountability, and the likelihood of public outrage if the House was to allow the Anti-Corruption Court to become defunct, could ultimately save the day.
"It is evident that the people are happy with what KPK has been doing, despite the case involving its boss," Erry said.
"And the Indonesian people are also now searching for a model leader who is strongly committed to the creation of clean government. I believe that Indonesians have now found that in [Yudhoyono], and I also believe that he will not turn his back on the people."