Soon after the reform movement swept across the nation in 1998, people began realizing the judiciary would be among the toughest institutions to change. It still is today. That was the message sent last week when the Constitutional Court scrapped the Judicial Commission's oversight of judges.

In a ruling last Wednesday, the Constitutional Court said the Judicial Commission was no longer authorized to supervise or scrutinize public reports about Supreme Court justices. A total of 820 reports have been received by the commission in the past year about the conduct of justices.

The Constitutional Court held that the articles on monitoring in the 2004 law that established the commission were lacking in detail and prone to manipulation. In the court's view, the articles contravened the 1945 Constitution. The court urged the government and the House of Representatives to amend the law on the Judicial Commission.

This is the culmination of a tug-of-war between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission. Tension between the two institutions rose when they met in June under the auspices of the Constitutional Court to debate the 2004 law on the Judicial Commission. The impression since that meeting has been that the two bodies are competing for power. The Supreme Court seems to see itself as omnipotent, while the commission appears eager for more power.

The lesson learned is that debating, a key element in a democracy, is a basic skill that continues to be ignored here. We still must learn to accept differences based on sound arguments, as opposed to presenting dissenting opinions for the sake of differing from our rivals.

It is open to debate just how much of a role complacency, arrogance of power, self-righteousness and politicking played in the legal imbroglio. But conspicuously absent was a broad-minded view toward the views of fellow legal experts, combined with an unfailing dedication toward the common good of the people.

The result is that we have been left without an important tool just when it is most needed. We need to fight corruption in the courts but the judges are busy beating each other over the head with legal principles. Meanwhile, good judges, a prerequisite in fighting corruption, remain difficult to find. It is a painful reality that many of our judges are crooks.

With the Judicial Commission having been stripped of its power to control judges, the battle against corruption has been put in limbo. The reason behind the Constitutional Court's ruling may be legally valid, but the point is that fighting corruption, especially in the courts, is a pressing issue.

Our judiciary is plagued by the so-called "judicial mafia". It is no secret that many of our judges act more like traders of court cases. And this sickness has been going on for decades without a cure. It is one of the primary reasons the country consistently sits near the top of the list of the most corrupt nations in the world.

This situation is akin to our fight against forest fires. The means to fight the fires are vastly inadequate, while the much needed rain never comes. The result is clear; the fires just keep growing bigger and bigger.

It is not without reason that legal experts and activists are crying foul over the Supreme Court's verdict on the Judicial Commission. They warn that corruption will go unchecked until the country's top legal institutions agree on who will supervise our judges. And they are calling on the government to promptly issue an emergency regulation to empower the Judicial Commission and fill the legal void left by the court's decision.

In the past, the commission asked the government to issue an emergency regulation to extend its powers in selecting justices. However, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono rejected the request saying the issue was not urgent. This despite heated calls to review the performance of justices.

Prolonged legal wrangling and failing to face the issue of corruption head on is the last thing people want. Indonesians are tired of listening to speeches on legal theory. What they want is justice. What they want is Yudhoyono to remember that he has made battling corruption the centerpiece of his government.

Common sense dictates that time is crucial in fighting corruption. Justice delayed is justice denied. The government and the House must act quickly to deliver justice.