Emergency alert for the Corruption Court Aradila Caesar Ifmaini Idris  ;   A researcher in the legal and judicial monitoring division of the independent Indonesia Corruption Watch in Jakarta

JAKARTA POST, 25 Agustus 2014

                                                

While many people have placed their hopes on the Corruption Court, its verdicts have failed to deter corruption. The Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) recorded that in the period of January-June 2014, at least 210 graft cases with 261 suspects went to trial. Of the 261 defendants, 241 were convicted while 20 were acquitted. Although most were found guilty, 195 convicts were sentenced to less than four years in prison. More than two-thirds of those convicted in corruption cases were handed down light sentences. A similar situation occurred in cases that went to trial in the first half of 2012 and in 2013. Of the total 195 convicted, 80 were imprisoned and sentenced to either one year or one year and six months. Most were sentenced to between one year and four years in prison, showing judges’ preference for the minimum sentence. Law enforcement in corruption cases often focuses on two fundamentals: to create a deterrent effect and state loss recovery. Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Law recognizes additional compensation to be paid by the convicted person. The amount of state losses caused by 185 cases during the first half of 2014 alone was remarkably high, totaling Rp. 3.86 trillion (US$ 330.66 billion). This sum increased dramatically compared to the previous two years. The ICW recorded that total state losses in 2012 amounted to around Rp. 200 billion, and around the same in 2013. Unfortunately, the Corruption Court ordered compensation of state losses in only 87 cases totaling Rp 87.4 million, or 2.25 percent of the total losses. The Supreme Court also needs to be aware of the efforts made to avoid obligations to pay compensation through attempts at case reviews. In addition to compensation, the fines to be paid by the convicted parties are also intended to provide a deterrent effect for corruption, but are also far from encouraging. This year, 217 of the 261 defendants were required to pay a fine. A total of 139 defendants were required to pay a fine of only Rp. 25 to 50 million. And average sentences of just two years and nine months would not deter corruptors — who would likely gain remissions or parole after serving a third of their sentence. In the future, all levels of the court must maintain a common view that corruption is an extraordinary crime with exceptional punishment. The Supreme Court should order the Corruption Court to hand down maximum sentences that include the annulment of their rights to pension funds and employment loss. The Supreme Court’s guidelines for corruption cases are crucial to reduce disparities in corruption sentences. Such guidelines would minimize today’s huge discretion of the judges in issuing verdicts, allowing them to abuse their power in exchange for bribes. If strategic measures are not taken immediately to address problems in corruption cases, we should consider that the Corruption Court is in a state of emergency. ●