|
Revolution is like Saturn, it devours
its own children, or so the adage goes. In France, the revolution saw
Georges-Jacques Danton, who led the overthrow of the monarchy and ensuing mass
executions, guillotined by the same tribunal he created himself. In Indonesia,
revolutionary Tan Malaka was shot in a military raid at the foot of Mt. Wilis
in East Java in 1949 and a number of independence fighters who led a rebellion
against the young Republic – some were killed – in 1950s.
The wind of reform that blew across the archipelago in 1998 is perhaps incomparable to a revolution, but the two have much in common in the way they inflicted pain. The arrest of Constitutional Court chief Akil Mochtar on Wednesday was a glaring example of the sacrifice the nation has to relinquish to keep the reform goals achievable.
Reformasi envisioned a nation free from corruption, collusion and nepotism, known by their Indonesian acronym as KKN, embodied in the administration of long-time ruler Soeharto, which therefore had to go. Public resentment to KKN then prompted the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) to issue a decree on the fight against the practice, but only five years after the inception of the MPR decree, the real combat on corruption commenced, thanks to the formation of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in 2003.
The first five years of reform saw hectic institutionalization of democracy, which was marked by four constitutional amendments that swing the pendulum to the opposite end.
It was the euphoria of democracy that gave impetus to the reconstruction of the House of Representatives into a powerful legislative body, transformation of the quiet three-party into a noisy multi-party system, implementation of regional autonomy that has forced the central government to transfer its powers related to regional development to local elites, introduction of direct elections of national and local leaders and generated new institutions and the birth of state institutions to support consolidation of democracy.
Among the institutions is the Constitutional Court, which is the last bastion of justice for citizens who have their constitutional rights infringed upon by the state. It gradually gained the public confidence, both at home and overseas, thanks to its rulings that, among others, restored the rights of political prisoners, abolished subversion articles and reinstated freedom of expression.
Oftentimes it sprang surprises, notably when it revoked altogether, the law on the truth and reconciliation commission, the electricity law, “commercialization” of state universities and most recently, an article in the 2001 oil and gas law that justified formation of the upstream oil and gas regulator BPMigas.
But in general, the Constitutional Court has managed to teach policymakers both in the House and the government a lesson to exercise prudence in drafting a national law. Short-term political interests which are prone to creating legal uncertainty and, hence, discrimination are the common flaws the Court has found in dozens of laws it has reviewed.
So far the Court has only yet to exercise its authority to impeach a president, merely because of the complicated procedure and difficult requirements which in practice are unlikely to meet.
But as the case of Akil has shown, the extra mandate to settle disputes over the results of regional elections awarded to the Court in 2009 turns out to be its Achilles heel. With dozens of regional election disputes deluging the Court’s filing cabinet, the chance for parties to the disputes to offer bribes to judges is high. A Constitutional Court judge is more susceptible to bribery attempts than other judges given the Court’s decision which is final and binding.
With about 500 regencies and municipalities and 34 provinces holding elections every five years, laypeople will easily calculate how much a judge could earn for giving a favor to an election contender. In the bribery case implicating Akil, the KPK accused him of receiving Rp 1 billion (US$88,500) in relation to the election dispute in the Banten regency of Lebak and $300,000 he shared with Golkar lawmaker Chairun Nisa from the regent of Gunung Mas in Central Kalimantan, Hambit Bintih.
As the decision to adjudicate an election dispute is collegial, the KPK is expected to disclose whether the bribery involved other Constitutional Court judges. Furthermore the public will be anxiously waiting for an answer to their suspicion that bribery could be behind many other verdicts to settle election disputes.
The shocking bribery scandal implicating Akil underlines that integrity matters in the selection of Constitutional Court judges at the House. Now that Akil has tainted, if not obliterated, credibility of the Court, many will not be surprised if someday another judge is arrested for accepting bribes from a company or businessman whose judicial review motion wins the Court’s nod.
Of course Akil, if found guilty, is entitled to maximum punishment for destroying the Court’s credibility. As a symbol of reform movement this nation cannot let the Court down otherwise the anti-reform force’s prophecy will be fulfilled.
Likewise, the nation does not necessarily call for dissolution of the House just because some of its lawmakers are corrupt, demand termination of direct elections and reinstate the old, indirect mechanism due to the high-cost politics they have created or support a move to reinstate centralization after seeing regional autonomy give a rise to “little kings”.
The excesses of the reform movement this nation embarked on more than 15 years ago are perhaps a difficult stage that we have to deal with through the rule of law. It is our responsibility to complete the reform until a full-fledged democracy we are craving materializes.
Unlike a revolution, however, reformation must not devour its own children. ●
The wind of reform that blew across the archipelago in 1998 is perhaps incomparable to a revolution, but the two have much in common in the way they inflicted pain. The arrest of Constitutional Court chief Akil Mochtar on Wednesday was a glaring example of the sacrifice the nation has to relinquish to keep the reform goals achievable.
Reformasi envisioned a nation free from corruption, collusion and nepotism, known by their Indonesian acronym as KKN, embodied in the administration of long-time ruler Soeharto, which therefore had to go. Public resentment to KKN then prompted the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) to issue a decree on the fight against the practice, but only five years after the inception of the MPR decree, the real combat on corruption commenced, thanks to the formation of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in 2003.
The first five years of reform saw hectic institutionalization of democracy, which was marked by four constitutional amendments that swing the pendulum to the opposite end.
It was the euphoria of democracy that gave impetus to the reconstruction of the House of Representatives into a powerful legislative body, transformation of the quiet three-party into a noisy multi-party system, implementation of regional autonomy that has forced the central government to transfer its powers related to regional development to local elites, introduction of direct elections of national and local leaders and generated new institutions and the birth of state institutions to support consolidation of democracy.
Among the institutions is the Constitutional Court, which is the last bastion of justice for citizens who have their constitutional rights infringed upon by the state. It gradually gained the public confidence, both at home and overseas, thanks to its rulings that, among others, restored the rights of political prisoners, abolished subversion articles and reinstated freedom of expression.
Oftentimes it sprang surprises, notably when it revoked altogether, the law on the truth and reconciliation commission, the electricity law, “commercialization” of state universities and most recently, an article in the 2001 oil and gas law that justified formation of the upstream oil and gas regulator BPMigas.
But in general, the Constitutional Court has managed to teach policymakers both in the House and the government a lesson to exercise prudence in drafting a national law. Short-term political interests which are prone to creating legal uncertainty and, hence, discrimination are the common flaws the Court has found in dozens of laws it has reviewed.
So far the Court has only yet to exercise its authority to impeach a president, merely because of the complicated procedure and difficult requirements which in practice are unlikely to meet.
But as the case of Akil has shown, the extra mandate to settle disputes over the results of regional elections awarded to the Court in 2009 turns out to be its Achilles heel. With dozens of regional election disputes deluging the Court’s filing cabinet, the chance for parties to the disputes to offer bribes to judges is high. A Constitutional Court judge is more susceptible to bribery attempts than other judges given the Court’s decision which is final and binding.
With about 500 regencies and municipalities and 34 provinces holding elections every five years, laypeople will easily calculate how much a judge could earn for giving a favor to an election contender. In the bribery case implicating Akil, the KPK accused him of receiving Rp 1 billion (US$88,500) in relation to the election dispute in the Banten regency of Lebak and $300,000 he shared with Golkar lawmaker Chairun Nisa from the regent of Gunung Mas in Central Kalimantan, Hambit Bintih.
As the decision to adjudicate an election dispute is collegial, the KPK is expected to disclose whether the bribery involved other Constitutional Court judges. Furthermore the public will be anxiously waiting for an answer to their suspicion that bribery could be behind many other verdicts to settle election disputes.
The shocking bribery scandal implicating Akil underlines that integrity matters in the selection of Constitutional Court judges at the House. Now that Akil has tainted, if not obliterated, credibility of the Court, many will not be surprised if someday another judge is arrested for accepting bribes from a company or businessman whose judicial review motion wins the Court’s nod.
Of course Akil, if found guilty, is entitled to maximum punishment for destroying the Court’s credibility. As a symbol of reform movement this nation cannot let the Court down otherwise the anti-reform force’s prophecy will be fulfilled.
Likewise, the nation does not necessarily call for dissolution of the House just because some of its lawmakers are corrupt, demand termination of direct elections and reinstate the old, indirect mechanism due to the high-cost politics they have created or support a move to reinstate centralization after seeing regional autonomy give a rise to “little kings”.
The excesses of the reform movement this nation embarked on more than 15 years ago are perhaps a difficult stage that we have to deal with through the rule of law. It is our responsibility to complete the reform until a full-fledged democracy we are craving materializes.
Unlike a revolution, however, reformation must not devour its own children. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar