In Jakarta
IF YOU go to the Supreme Court building where judges have their office rooms, you will see signboards, which roughly translates into: “Parties involved in court cases are not allowed to visit judges.”
These signboards tell two things. One is the rule itself, and second is the fact that there have been such incidents in the past.
Earlier this week, Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) announced that a corruption perception survey on 9,390 people last year found that the country’s Supreme Court was deemed as the most corrupt public institution.
Sixty-five per cent of the respondents polled said they had to offer incentives when dealing with the Supreme Court. The second most corrupt institution, according to the survey, was a lower court the West Jakarta District Court.
The KPK’s survey was a wake-up call.
The “court mafia” remains a familiar term to Indonesian ears - a great irony given the country’s impressive battles against corruption in the past.
Scores of members of parliament, former ministers, and even the President’s relative by marriage - who is a former central bank deputy governor - have been jailed for corruption. Judges, though, have practically been untouched.
There is always a loophole in any piece of legislation and law - and some rogue judges exploit such loopholes. Like, for instance, meeting “clients” through a third party.
It’s a public secret that court cases are occasionally traded. The brokers – in many cases sons, relatives or close friends of the judges handling the case – are tasked to look for “potential clients” and liaise with them. This way judges keep their hands clean and work around the golden rule which hangs on signboards displayed in court buildings.
So, how do they do it? It’s purely a business based on trust. Clients don’t necessarily get to see the judges themselves, but you get their service alright.
Rogue Supreme Judges usually only serve in the “grey” cases, which contain many loopholes or points open to debate or allow multiple interpretations.
Simple, straight-forward ones are usually ignored. These would be considered as the “black” cases.
The most favoured ones are the “white” cases. Clients, who have been treated unfairly in a lower court, or whose defeat was due to the lower court judge’s poor judgement, are considered come under this category. Rogue Supreme Judges would want fees to overturn such lower court ruling. Naturally, this white case would cost clients less.
The fact that the Indonesian judicial system doesn’t recognise the principle of jurispudence helps the “court mafia”.
In Indonesia, two very similar cases could have totally opposite rulings. Even a lower court can make a ruling that’s opposite to an earlier ruling – on the similar, if not, the same case – made by the Supreme Court, say two years or three ago.
The signboards forbidding the visiting of judges appear quite a waste indeed.