Dicky Christanto, Jakarta – What do Robert Tantular and Amir Mahmud have in common? Both of them are convicts. Both of them were sentenced to four years in prison because judges found them guilty.

Robert, the former co-owner of now-defunct Bank Century, was sentenced to four years in prison and was fined Rp 50 billion by the Central Jakarta District Court on Sept. 10 last year. He was found guilty of embezzling the savings of the bank's customers.

Meanwhile, Amir, a former driver at the National Narcotics Agency (BNN), was sentenced to four years as well by the West Jakarta District Court in March 27 last year after being found guilty of possession of one ecstasy pill. He was also fined Rp 150 million by a panel of judges.

One point of interest is worth mentioning: Amir's hearing reportedly lasted less than an hour.

Robert's crimes negatively affected the lives of thousands of the bank's customers, yet he only received a four-year sentence.

Amir, whose everyday life was already a struggle thanks to the country's continuous inability or reluctance to improve the livelihoods of its citizens, was sentenced for a crime where he was the only victim. Such disparity weighs on the public conscience.

Experts have said the choice of laws and regulations that should have been used by both police and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute both cases was a contentious debate, and one with no clear answers.

Apparently, these two cases are indicative of the thousands of other similar cases throughout the country where the discretionary authority of law enforcement officials has been questioned.

Jakarta Muhammadiyah University legal expert Chairul Huda said abuse of power by police, prosecutors and judges while handling cases has been increasing in recent years.

"The current system does not provide proper monitoring of these law enforcement officials. The same system has also allowed arbitrary intervention from senior officers toward their subordinates," he told The Jakarta Post recently.

"Thus, anyone who is in the current system would immediately lose his or her independency and soon, integrity, while handling cases, especially high-profile cases that involve a lot of money, such as drug trafficking and corruption cases," he added.

Chairul said although the current system had internal monitoring divisions, they lacked authority and independence, thus allowing high-ranking officials to intervene at will.

The current system also prevents the public from monitoring the handling of cases by police and prosecutors, as both these institutions can chose to withhold information on their cases.

"Who is going to monitor every step of the investigation process in thousands of cases that are currently being processed by both police and prosecutors?" Chairul asked.

According to data from the Attorney General's Office, there were 102 special criminal cases and 1378 general criminal cases currently being investigated. While the police have not provided similar data, Chairul said many more cases were being handled by police officers.

Therefore, he said, it was time for the country's legal system to adopt a new mechanism that would allow stricter monitoring of the use of discretionary power.

Chairul said the Criminal Code Bill, which is stagnating at the House of Representatives, was actually designed to provide a solution to the lack of monitoring.

In this new version of the Criminal Code, a law enforcement official would need to seek a warrant from a judge to initiate legal actions, starting from naming a suspect to sending the suspect to jail.

He explained that this judge's position would differ from that of his colleagues who would be tasked with conducting the hearings. Additionally, this judge would be obliged to perform their duties in a transparent manner, open to the public.

Chairul added that the judge would be closely monitored by the Judicial Commission, NGOs and other parties with an interest in the investigation of the case.

The role of senior officers in law enforcer institutions, he added, would be drastically reduced. These officers, he said, would no longer be in charge of case investigations. "This means they would not be able to intervene in the case," he explained.

In early 2006, the new versions of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Code Procedure were successfully drafted by a group of the country's top legal experts.

However, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's administration then decided to halt the deliberation of both bills, citing what experts consider unclear reasons.

The University of Indonesia's Rudi Satrio Munkantarjo agreed that both bills would improve the country's legal monitoring system, arguing that abandoning the deliberation of the bills would only deteriorate the country's law enforcement process.

"If we are unable to immediately improve the system now, I strongly suggest we should initiate a partial improvement," he said.

University of Indonesia political expert Eep Saefuloh Fatah said in order to build a strong mechanism that would allow law enforcement officials to improve their performance, the government had to improve its monitoring system.