TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Although the Judicial Commission (KY)’s recommendation to the Supreme Court to impose six months non-hearing status on Sarpin is too lenient, the decision has to be supported.

Whatever it is, any breach of judge code of ethics must not be taken lightly.

The Supreme Court should accept this recommendation.

KY’s recommendation comes after Sarpin’s controversial ruling when he led the pre-trial hearing of Budi Gunawan in February this year. Sarpin cancelled the suspect status of Budi Gunawan by violating the law.

Before revision made by the Constitutional Court, Article 77 of the Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) did not include naming of suspects of objects of pre-trial hearing.

It means that at that time, Sarpin should have rejected Budi’s petition for pre-trial hearing.

KY also concluded that judge Sarpin is not professional in formulating consideration before making a ruling on Budi’s case.

Sarpin was also mistaken when he mentioned the names and quoted information from expert witnesses.

If for simple matters Sarpin is not accurate, how can we trust him in making breakthrough in the civil law?

Sarpin’s opinion that Budi Gunawan was not a law enforcer is also against common sense.

Article 1 and 15 of the Law on Police clearly states that every police officer is law enforcer.

Son, Sarpin’s reasoning that Budi – when he was appointed as Head of National Police Career Development (2003-2006) - cannot be investigated by the Corruption Eradication Commission because he was not a law enforcer, is beyond logics.

Sarpin’s behavior and attitude after making the ruling was also far from being exemplary.

KY said that Sarpin did not show modesty, which must be one of the characteristics of a judge.

When he was summoned to clarify the alleged the breach of code of ethics, Sarpin challenged KY to come to South Jakarta district court.

In fact, KY is a high level institution. Its authority to supervise judges is mandated by our basic constitution, the 1945 Constitution.

Sarpin’s action in reporting two KY commissioners to the Jakarta regional police was also out of proportion. He accused the commissioners who criticized him through media of defaming him.

What’s interesting – this is probably beyond Sarpin’s initial calculation — his other action has in fact given a new evidence for KY. Recently, KY found a strong indication that the judge received gratification when he gave reports to the police.

According to KY, Sarpin also used the service of private lawyers for free.

In fact, law on corruption eradication forbids gratification in a wider sense, including the giving of money, goods, discount, loans without interest or any free facilities. The same prohibition is also found in the Code of Ethics and Behavior Guidance of Judges.

Now, there is no reason for the Supreme Court to postpone imposing sanctions for Sarpin.

Although KY only recommended medium sanction, the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court should question to investigate the possibility of more serious violations.

If there is any indication of graft, the Supreme Court should immediately work with the National Police or the Corruption Eradication Commission.

(*)