Abdul Khalik, Jakarta – In an effort to boost transparency, the Supreme Court released its 2007 performance report here Thursday, sparking confusion over the amounts of restitution and fines it collected from convicts.
The report also met immediate skepticism from judiciary officials and experts of whether the top court was serious about fighting corrupt judges.
The report said all district courts across Indonesia had managed to collect a total of around Rp 143 billion last year, after resolving some 21,000 cases of corruption, drugs and illegal logging. At appeal levels, the Supreme Court said it could recover Rp 896 billion from the 14,728 cases resolved.
University of Indonesia legal expert Rudy Satrio questioned the reported amount, saying it was not enough. He estimated the amount was a third of the true amount court should have collected from criminal convictions.
The Judiciary Commission (KY) and National Ombudsman Commission could not comment on the report, which they said needed more clarification from the Supreme Court.
KY chairman Busyro Muqoddas said he could not say whether the amounts were realistic or not, as he would need to examine the money involved in each of the cases resolved. "We don't see the how much money was involved in cases, so we don't know," he said.
National Ombudsman Commission chairman Antonius Sujata shared Busyro's view, saying that the Supreme Court needed an audit to determine if the amounts were legitimate or not. "We should cross-check it with data from the Attorney General's Office and conduct an external audit to make sure it is the right amount," he said.
Chief Justice Bagir Manan, however, said he would not allow an audit of his office. The Supreme Court also said it had handed down administrative sanctions on 17 judges found guilty of non-criminal offenses. The report shows only one judge was charged by police with corruption.
"The sanctions include discharging as judge, dismissals from posts and transferring to other areas," Bagir said.
This report demonstrated a lack of commitment on the part of the Supreme Court to be tough on corrupt judges, said Busyro, Antonius and Rudy. They pointed to the fact that only one judge was prosecuted with criminal charges.
"I think the Supreme Court is too soft. The number of judges charged should have been much higher," Rudy said. "We can't depend on internal monitoring as it doesn't work. You see, many lawyers have confessed to bribing judges. But they don't want to testify because they fear the consequences."
Sujata similarly said external control, including from the Ombudsman body and the Judiciary Commission, was key to reforming the judicial system. "We have received many complaints from the public about bad judges. But compared to the police, the Supreme Court is much less ignorant of our input," he said.