Constitutional Court Chief: Two-Thirds of Judges will Go to Hell

TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Constitutional Court Chief Justice Anwar Usman had been elected to his new post just four days earlier to succeed Arief Hidayat, a law professor at the Diponegoro University. At his swearing-in, Anwar uttered innalillahi (we all belong to the Almighty).

"Being in a high position is a disaster," Anwar, 61, mused. 

Tough challenges do await Anwar amid the public’s waning trust in the institution following the graft scandals that brought down Akil Mochtar and Patrialis Akbar in 2013 and 2017 respectively and, recently, the ethics violation committed by Arief Hidayat. Anwar is also expected to curb the split among the nine judges. Anwar has often sided with the more controversial judicial review rulings. In last year’s judicial review to broaden the definition of zina (unlawful sexual relations) in the Criminal Code, for example, Anwar, Arief Hidayat, Wahiduddin Adams and Aswanto, were in favor of the appellant to make zina a general crime regardless of perpetrators’ marital status and whether or not there are complaints. When five other judges rejected it, Anwar and friends issued a dissenting opinion. 

Anwar with Arief, Patrialis Akbar, Manahan Sitompul, Mahiduddin and Aswanto also endorsed the revision of the gubernatorial, regent and mayoral election law which will allow former convicts to nominate themselves for regional head elections. For the review of the laws of legislative bodies MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD in relation to the House of Representatives’ (DPR) right to inquiry, it was also Anwar and four other judges that agreed to arm the DPR with the right to call the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to account on the pretext that the a+nti-graft agency was part of the executive branch. 

Anwar dismissed allegations of polarization within the Court. "People only look at one or two verdicts," he reasoned. Anwar was elected to office after garnering five votes, one vote more than Suhartoyo’s. The deputy chief justice selection also yielded the same vote composition with Aswanto defeating Saldi Isra.

Anwar has also come under scrutiny over his wealth. The state officials’ assets report shows his wealth has jumped from Rp3.97 billion at the start of his career as a Constitutional Court judge in 2011-he was previously with the Supreme Court-to Rp18.7 billion in 2016. 

At his new office, Anwar received Tempo’s Reza Maulana, Angelina Anjar and Rusman Paraqbueq for this interview. In his very first media interview, Anwar frequently referred to hadiths (the sayings of Prophet Muhammad). 

Who are the judges that voted for you for the Constitutional Court Chief Justice post?

I don’t know. That’s confidential.

We have information that five days before the voting, just before the Maghrib (sunset) prayer, you, Arief Hidayat, Aswanto, Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan Sitompul had a meeting and made a pact to push your nomination. What is your response?

That’s not true. Why have a meeting with half of the chamber? Don’t listen to rumors. Try and dig further for the truth. There was a meeting that day, but one to confirm that after two terms, Pak Arief couldn’t go for another term as chief justice. But he could still be elected as the deputy chief. All the judges were there. No other meetings took place afterward.

Perhaps it was an informal meeting.

No such lobbying went on. All the positions belong to God. No one can stop God’s will.

Why via voting rather than deliberation to elect the new chief?

As in any other deliberation for consensus, there were dissenting parties, so we opted for voting, which isn’t something bad or extraordinary. That’s the hallmark of democracy. As far as I know, since the constitutional court was first established in 2003, the elections of chief justices-Pak Jimly (Asshiddiqie for 2003-2008) and Pak Mahfud Md. (2008-2013)-were conducted via voting.

Is it true that the same judges voted for both you and Deputy Chief Aswanto?

All the judges have the freedom and discretion to choose whomever they like. I also can’t reveal who voted for me. I didn’t necessarily vote for myself.

Did you not vote for yourself?

I can’t answer that. I, in fact, apologized during the session in case the judge I voted for wasn’t elected. (Laughs).

Why did the same vote result of five against four come up again?

People judged only based on two judicial review rulings-of the MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD or MD3 law and of the articles 284, 285 and 292 of the criminal code (relating to unlawful sex, rape and same-sex sexual offenses). It’s true it was five against four, but please check if the perceptions were the same.

Manahan Sitompul was against broadening the definition of zina resulting in the suit being rejected.

Yes. That’s why there are no frictions.

Read the full interview in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine.