Heru Andriyanto – Recent scandals involving law-enforcement officials are further eroding public trust in the police force and judiciary in a trend that has become apparent over the past few years.

Regular people such as Ignatius Istanto, 31, now see the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) as the new champion in the country's battle against graft, picking up where other authorities have failed.

"Police and prosecutors are themselves reeling from internal scandals, such as these so-called case brokers," the Jakarta resident said. "For me, the KPK is still on track in the country's campaign to root out corruption, and it looks to be the only agency committed to that."

These days, when news breaks of failed corruption cases by police or prosecutors, antigraft campaigners immediately turn to the KPK, which was established in 2002 but only came into full operation in 2004. And rifts between the new and the old only serve to polarize public opinion away from the more established agencies.

Public shift

The growing public distrust in the police and prosecutors was most evident when two KPK deputies, Chandra M Hamzah and Bibit Samad Rianto, were accused of abuse of power and extortion of a graft suspect last year.

With nowhere else to turn, Chandra and Bibit took recourse with the fledgling Constitutional Court, established just six years earlier, where it soon became clear that the case against them had been fabricated. In one memorable hearing, the court played back wiretapped phone conversations in which suspected case brokers and officials from the National Police and the AGO allegedly plotted to bring down the pair.

Prosecutors later halfheartedly dropped the charges, insisting they had a case but had been forced to abandon it in the interests of preserving social harmony.

In another case, having secured information about suspected ticketing price scam at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Indonesia Corruption Watch opted to report it to the KPK instead of the AGO, which had earlier indicated it would drop an ongoing graft probe into the ministry's Bangkok Embassy.

"It's been long time since we reported a case to the AGO," said Danang Widoyoko, ICW's chairman. "We don't anymore because the last time we did, we got no response. Now we always go to the KPK to report allegations of graft, and although they're sometimes very slow to take action, they still appreciate our reports and work professionally."

Alarm bells

The switch in public trust from traditional law-enforcement agencies to the KPK has be so complete that the government needs to carry out sweeping reforms in the police and the AGO, one legal activist says.

"The KPK by nature is an ad hoc agency established in response to police and prosecutor's inability in crack down on rampant corruption," said Boyamin Saiman, chairman of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI). "The idea was to strengthen the existing agencies, and once those were in shape to handle all corruption cases, the KPK could be phased out.

"But the commission's remarkable achievement in a very short time has changed everything. Now Indonesians want the KPK to become a permanent antigraft agency with powerful branches at district level, just like police and prosecutors."

Boyamin said he personally supported calls for the KPK to have sole authority in corruption cases, while police and prosecutors could focus on general crimes like murder or drug trafficking.

The shift in public preference, he said, should furthermore prompt the government into reforming the ailing law enforcers. "That's the only choice, because we can't disband the police or prosecutors' offices. No country could function without either," he added.

Taking on the mantle

In addition to the KPK and the Constitutional Court, other agencies taking on the mantle of law enforcers include the Judicial Commission, Judicial Mafia Eradication Task Force and Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), which all provide information on major crimes involving state officials.

But with the exception of the KPK, these have no authority to take direct measures against crime. The most they can do is pass on information to the "traditional" agencies, which often turn a blind eye to their tip-offs or even misuse them.

The PPATK, for example, cannot freeze suspect accounts without approval from the police or prosecutors, while the Judicial Commission cannot sanction errant judges.

Red-faced

Had police and prosecutors properly handled the initial PPATK report on the suspicious bank accounts of rogue tax official Gayus Tambunan, they would likely not be as embarrassed as they are today.

Last year, the PPATK reported Gayus had bank accounts containing up to Rp 28 billion ($3.1 million), indicating possible graft or money-laundering. But in a subsequent low-profile trial in the Tangerang District Court, prosecutors omitted those charges and tried him on a lesser charge of embezzling Rp 370 million from a South Korean businessman.

Since his acquittal in March, on grounds of insufficient evidence, police, prosecutors and even judges involved in the case have been implicated in alleged bribery to influence the outcome of the trial. While the Supreme Court gave the judges in the Gayus trial a preliminary all-clear, the Judicial Commission, by contrast, said that presiding Judge Muhtadi Asnun had admitted to taking a Rp 50 million bribe from Gayus.

Another area where the traditional judiciary fares poorly is in trying graft cases. The Anti-Corruption Court, which was set up to exclusively try graft cases prosecuted by the KPK, has a 100 percent conviction rate – so far, only two suspects have avoided conviction, one after being declared insane and another who died mid-trial.

District courts, meanwhile, are far more lenient. An ICW study revealed that of the 378 graft suspects tried in public courts from district level to the Supreme Court last year, 59 percent were acquitted, while 40 percent received the minimum sentence of a year in prison.