- Political dynasty should not restricted by violating citizens’ political rights
- Criminalization of Judicial Commission Commissioner
- Again, Lawyers Allegedly As Perpetrators Involved in Latest Corruption Cases
Constitutional Court
Political dynasty should not restricted by violating citizens’ political rights
The Constitutional Court annulled the Local Election Law’s provision that prohibits incumbent’s relatives to run into regional head candidacy. The Court decided unconstitutional the provision as it violating the political rights of citizens.
Article 7 section r of the Local Election Law states that Indonesian citizens who have a conflict of interest with the incumbent cannot enter the race as a candidate of governor, mayor, or regent in a local election. Elucidation of this article defines “conflict of interest” as “having filiation, bond of marriage and/or lineage with incumbent”. A number of prospective head regions then filed a judicial review case over the Local Election Law to the Constitutional Court.
In the decision that accepted the petition, the panel of constitutional judges considered the provision have discriminates citizens who wish to participate in the democratic process, solely because of birth status and kinship with the incumbent. Bivitri Susanti from the Indonesian Centre for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK) agreed with the court ruling as it gives the same treatment to the prospective head region. Bivitri argued, although political dynasty gives negative impacts to the people, the solution to the problem should not violate the political rights of citizens who intend to run in the elections.
On the other hand, some commentators and activists assumed the court decision would preserve the bad practice of political dynasty. Former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Jimly Asshiddiqie criticised the decision as a setback and a form of legalisation of political dynasty. Jimly believed that, the state should impose some restrictions through legislation to prevent the negative impacts of political dynasty as the Indonesian political culture is still influenced by feudalism.
A number of head of regions in Indonesia do have members of their family who has important positions in local government, either as regional officials or member of local parliament. Moreover, there are also incumbents’ relatives who are intended to replace the incumbent’s positions by running for parliamentary office. In Indonesia, the incumbent officials often using influence and position to give advantage to their relatives who take part as candidates in local elections. In some local elections, the candidates who have family relationships with the incumbents have won the election despite not having adequate capacity as head of the region. (RA)
Anti Corruption
Criminalization of Judicial Commission Commissioner
The Police decided two Taufiqurrohman Syahuri and Suparman Marzuki; both ar commissioners from the Judiciary Commission as defamation suspects; based on Judge Sarpin Rizaldi report. Sarpin Rizaldi is gain his infamous reputation a while back while deciding the pre-trial court on Budi Gunawan. Both Commissioners are charged on Article 310 from the Criminal Code on defamation and Article 311 on blasphemy. Judge Sarpin make his charges against the commissioners recommendation to the Supreme Court that the controversial judge be suspended for at least six months for ethical misconduct in handing down a contentious ruling in a pretrial motion on Feb. 16.
According to Sarpin, such recommendations will ruin his dignity and his profession as a judge.
Several academia and civil society organizations gave statements on the case argues to point a state apparatus as suspect while he is just doing his responsibility is a form of criminalization. Some indicators of criminalization are the uncanny timing of naming both commissioners as suspect after they gave recommendation on Judge Sarpin. While presenting their recommendation to the Supreme Court, the Judiciary Commissions also stated they just work to implement their oversight function on judges ethics and conduct.
Other indicator on criminalization is that there are other ways to correctly respond the Judiciary Commission to the Supreme Court. If one assume the Judiciary Commissions are behaving negatively; he or she should report the commissioner to the Ethical Council of the Commission itself; according to Article 33 of Law on The Judiciary Commission and The Judiciary Commission No.6/2005. The council serves to uphold the Judiciary Commissions Code of Ethics and Conduct which then on to decide if there is a violation. Similar to the criminalization case against anti-graft commission (Komisi Anti Korupsi/KPK) the criminalization would interfere the Judiciary Commission work. The police force should reassess their way of investigatinng criminal cases in order not impede officials doing their jobs . (RW)
Legal Community
Again, Lawyers Allegedly As Perpetrators Involved in Latest Corruption Cases
The anti-graft commision (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/KPK) during a sting operation caught red handedly three judges and one court clerk in Medan, North Sumatera. One of the judges is the Head of Administrative Court (Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara/PTUN) in North Sumatra; and the clerk is from the same court in Medan. They caught red handedly after receiving money from M. Yagari Bhastara; a young lawyer working for OC Kaligis law office in Jakarta. It is suspected that the bribe received by the judges was in relation cases carried out by officials from the North Sumatera Province. The Governor of North Sumatera, Gatot Pujo Nugroho, has been prevented to travel and examined as witness by the anti-graft commission.
Corruption cases involving lawyers already happened before. There are already 10 layers whose proven guilty engaged in corruption cases. On Most cases, there are two modus operandi: the lawyer initiated to bribe or they take role as intermediary in to bribe officials on behalf of their clients.
Lawyers are supposed to be what the law called as noble profession (officium nobile); but sadly they partaking action in corruption. The legal profession organization seems not enough to detect, supervised and give sanction to their members. Up until now, legal profession organization has never been revoked practices license of lawyers though he/she proved guilty in corruption cases. Whereas in Art. 9 Law No. 18/2003 on Advocate has set that legal profesion organization can dismiss or revoke license. Conflict that continously happened in legal profession organization causes neglect to build lawyers integrity. M. Yagari Bhastara arrest should be a cautionary tale of the importance to build integrity amongst young lawyer in Indonesia. (MSG)