|
Why are we surprised? The fact that our judiciary is
riddled with corruption is a foregone conclusion. The recent arrest of
Constitutional Court’s (MK) Chief Justice Akil Mochtar on corruption charges
was shocking, but it was in fact something that we had known (or hoped) would
happen sooner or later.
I am not saying that Akil — a former Golkar Party lawmaker — has always been notoriously corrupt. He is, constitutionally, innocent until proven otherwise. But we know for sure that there is something wrong with our judicial system, for it allows corruption to flourish.
Akil’s arrest last week on suspicion that he took bribes to rig the results of two regional elections in Banten and South Kalimantan did nothing but confirm our long-held belief.
The only surprise about the great Akil saga is the political amnesia of former Constitutional Court chiefs and all the politicians who joined the chorus of condemnation against the disgraced justice. His tragic fall from grace has so predictably created a perfect political juncture for attention-seeking politicians ahead of the 2014 general election. We should know that judicial graft is systemic and Akil is most likely not a black sheep.
Former Constitutional Court chiefs Jimly Asshiddiqie and Mahfud MD were the first to lash out at Akil, with Jimly suggesting that his successor at the court be given the death sentence for tearing the court’s credibility into pieces.
The only problem is that Jimly could be the person to blame for paving the way for graft in the
court in the first place, by issuing in 2006 a controversial ruling curtailing the Judicial Commission (KY)’s power to oversee Constitutional Court and Supreme Court justices.
Jimly then presided over the trial of a judicial review request against the 2003 Judicial Commission Law filed by a dozen of the Supreme Court justices who sought to scrap the commission’s authority to oversee them. The Constitutional Court granted the justices’ request and also ruled, without being requested (also known as an ultra petita ruling), that Constitutional Court justices were not subject to Judicial Commission supervision. Jimly argued that the Supreme Court’s and Constitutional Court’s rulings are final and binding, and that no institution should examine them to avoid legal uncertainty.
The ruling practically gave the Constitutional Court absolute judicial power. It did not take long for the court, which was established in October 2003, to face graft allegations after it began in the 2008 adjudicating local election disputes, which were previously handled by the Supreme Court.
Under Mahfud’s leadership, the Constitutional Court was hit by two major graft scandals implicating justices Arsyad Sanusi and Akil. Arsyad resigned after being found guilty of an ethics breach, while Akil was cleared by an internal ethics committee. Despite the scandals, Constitutional Court justices continued to work without external oversight.
The lawmakers have also been loud in blasting Akil. Democratic Party lawmaker I Gede Pasek Suardika, for instance, claimed that the House of Representatives had heard about the graft allegations against Akil since 2010. Ironically, Akil, who served as a lawmaker from 1999 to 2008, was fully endorsed by the House anyway.
Even the House allowed Akil to extend his term last April without having to undergo a screening test to ensure that his integrity was uncompromised
The House’s Commission III overseeing legal affairs, of which Akil was once a deputy chairman, then praised the 52-year-old justice, calling him an “old friend”.
Meanwhile, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said that he was deeply concerned by the bribery case, calling Akil’s arrest a “political tragedy”.
He said that the government would issue a regulation in lieu of law, or Perppu, to improve the mechanism to select justices, which he said was flawed, pointing to the fact that politics often interfere in the process.
That is a commendable move, but we shall not forget that it was the President himself who blatantly disregarded a proper selection process when he appointed former law and human rights minister and former National Mandate Party (PAN) politician, Patrialis Akbar, as Constitutional Court justice.
Patrialis’ appointment was seen as problematic in so many ways. He is first of all a politician. The selection process to pick him was not transparent and it was bizarre for the President to nominate his former law minister whom he had fired in 2011 for such an important post.
Yudhoyono, however, turned a deaf ear to his critics, who accused of him breaching the law, and inaugurated Patrialis anyway. In what could only be seen as a publicity stunt, Patrialis was the only Constitutional Court justice who came to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) when the agency announced Akil’s arrest.
Regardless of whether the politicians are using Akil’s misfortune for their own political gains, the House’s and the government’s plan to reform the Constitutional Court, including the reinstatement of the Judicial’s power to oversee the court Commission’s, should be welcomed by all.
The Constitutional Court is an important institution for our democracy, without which the public would not be able to fight for their constitutional rights. The court will also play a crucial role as the final adjudicator of electoral disputes after the general election next year. It is critical that civil society groups are involved in the making of new legislation to reform the court.
We cannot afford to let it be controlled by politically wired justices that will again compromise its integrity for their personal interests.
We are hoping the Akil saga will trigger real reform efforts and will not just be a stage for amnesia and attention-seeking politicians to bash Akil. ●
I am not saying that Akil — a former Golkar Party lawmaker — has always been notoriously corrupt. He is, constitutionally, innocent until proven otherwise. But we know for sure that there is something wrong with our judicial system, for it allows corruption to flourish.
Akil’s arrest last week on suspicion that he took bribes to rig the results of two regional elections in Banten and South Kalimantan did nothing but confirm our long-held belief.
The only surprise about the great Akil saga is the political amnesia of former Constitutional Court chiefs and all the politicians who joined the chorus of condemnation against the disgraced justice. His tragic fall from grace has so predictably created a perfect political juncture for attention-seeking politicians ahead of the 2014 general election. We should know that judicial graft is systemic and Akil is most likely not a black sheep.
Former Constitutional Court chiefs Jimly Asshiddiqie and Mahfud MD were the first to lash out at Akil, with Jimly suggesting that his successor at the court be given the death sentence for tearing the court’s credibility into pieces.
The only problem is that Jimly could be the person to blame for paving the way for graft in the
court in the first place, by issuing in 2006 a controversial ruling curtailing the Judicial Commission (KY)’s power to oversee Constitutional Court and Supreme Court justices.
Jimly then presided over the trial of a judicial review request against the 2003 Judicial Commission Law filed by a dozen of the Supreme Court justices who sought to scrap the commission’s authority to oversee them. The Constitutional Court granted the justices’ request and also ruled, without being requested (also known as an ultra petita ruling), that Constitutional Court justices were not subject to Judicial Commission supervision. Jimly argued that the Supreme Court’s and Constitutional Court’s rulings are final and binding, and that no institution should examine them to avoid legal uncertainty.
The ruling practically gave the Constitutional Court absolute judicial power. It did not take long for the court, which was established in October 2003, to face graft allegations after it began in the 2008 adjudicating local election disputes, which were previously handled by the Supreme Court.
Under Mahfud’s leadership, the Constitutional Court was hit by two major graft scandals implicating justices Arsyad Sanusi and Akil. Arsyad resigned after being found guilty of an ethics breach, while Akil was cleared by an internal ethics committee. Despite the scandals, Constitutional Court justices continued to work without external oversight.
The lawmakers have also been loud in blasting Akil. Democratic Party lawmaker I Gede Pasek Suardika, for instance, claimed that the House of Representatives had heard about the graft allegations against Akil since 2010. Ironically, Akil, who served as a lawmaker from 1999 to 2008, was fully endorsed by the House anyway.
Even the House allowed Akil to extend his term last April without having to undergo a screening test to ensure that his integrity was uncompromised
The House’s Commission III overseeing legal affairs, of which Akil was once a deputy chairman, then praised the 52-year-old justice, calling him an “old friend”.
Meanwhile, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said that he was deeply concerned by the bribery case, calling Akil’s arrest a “political tragedy”.
He said that the government would issue a regulation in lieu of law, or Perppu, to improve the mechanism to select justices, which he said was flawed, pointing to the fact that politics often interfere in the process.
That is a commendable move, but we shall not forget that it was the President himself who blatantly disregarded a proper selection process when he appointed former law and human rights minister and former National Mandate Party (PAN) politician, Patrialis Akbar, as Constitutional Court justice.
Patrialis’ appointment was seen as problematic in so many ways. He is first of all a politician. The selection process to pick him was not transparent and it was bizarre for the President to nominate his former law minister whom he had fired in 2011 for such an important post.
Yudhoyono, however, turned a deaf ear to his critics, who accused of him breaching the law, and inaugurated Patrialis anyway. In what could only be seen as a publicity stunt, Patrialis was the only Constitutional Court justice who came to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) when the agency announced Akil’s arrest.
Regardless of whether the politicians are using Akil’s misfortune for their own political gains, the House’s and the government’s plan to reform the Constitutional Court, including the reinstatement of the Judicial’s power to oversee the court Commission’s, should be welcomed by all.
The Constitutional Court is an important institution for our democracy, without which the public would not be able to fight for their constitutional rights. The court will also play a crucial role as the final adjudicator of electoral disputes after the general election next year. It is critical that civil society groups are involved in the making of new legislation to reform the court.
We cannot afford to let it be controlled by politically wired justices that will again compromise its integrity for their personal interests.
We are hoping the Akil saga will trigger real reform efforts and will not just be a stage for amnesia and attention-seeking politicians to bash Akil. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar