Judicial Commission Chair: Biggest Challenge is from the Inside

Two years of being a member of the Judicial Commission--which is responsible for monitoring judges--have been an eye opener for Suparman Marzuki. He is convinced that many factors cause judges to perform poorly, and even to resort to corruption. That is why when he was sworn in as the commission's new chairman until 2015, Suparman knew well the heavy task ahead of him.

He figures that so far, there are only two out of 10 judges who meet the criteria of being qualified and have integrity. "A good judge who steals is bad. A straight judge who is not competent is equally dangerous," said Suparman. Unfortunately, the best and the brightest graduates of leading law schools in the country do not seem interested in becoming a judge. The current system of recruitment and promotion by the Supreme Court does seem to attract judges with the two criteria.

Two weeks ago, Tempo reporters Agoeng Wijaya, Maria Rita Hasugian and Anton Septian met Suparman at his office in Central Jakarta for an interview. Excerpts:

Is it true there was a rift among the seven members of the Judicial Commission over the selection of the new chairman?

Taking sides in the process of electing a new leader is something that happens in any organization. Even when choosing the leader of a mosque, who must deal with heaven and earth issues, the community or followers surely discuss among themselves who they regard as the right person.

But (fellow commissioner) Taufiqqurahman Syahuri questioned your chairmanship because reportedly, it contradicted an agreement made at the Acacia Hotel in Jakarta in December 2010. Is this true?

At that time we were not yet provided with official housing, so during the transition period, all commissioners were accommodated at Acacia Hotel for one month, except for Pak Abbas Said, who had occupied the official residence of a chief judge. At the hotel, we informally discussed who would become chairman, because it's true that he or she is chosen by all the commissioners. I, Pak Taufiqqurahman and Pak Anshori Saleh agreed to support Pak Eman Suparman as chairman for the two-and-a-half-year period.

You have now led the Judicial Commission for almost a month. Is there still tension among the commissioners?

We maintain good relations. In fact, after I was sworn in, we immediately held a plenary meeting to determine the nomenclature, and the tasks of each commissioner. The meeting ended in one hour. If there were tension and rivalry, we would not come to an agreement so fast. Actually, we have come to know each other quite well. About 95 percent of agreements made are based on deliberation and consensus, not by voting.

How many decisions have been reached by the Judicial Commission in the past two and a half years?

Very many, hundreds: light penalties for judges, heavy penalties or just warnings.

This commission is now eight years old, and claims to have taken a lot of action against errant judges. But why do rumors still persist that the 'justice syndicate' is growing stronger and controls the judges?

We have not properly institutionalized the commission's major functions. So far, the Judicial Commission has been doing its work as mandated by the constitution, and that's to recruit and monitor judges. In the real sense, it means selecting senior judges and overseeing their work, according to reports from the public. If the reports cannot be proven, the investigation does not go on. In the future, the commission must be more active and responsive to ensure a clean judiciary that has integrity and the trust of the people.

How will you do that?

An important element of clean and honorable courts is judges who are qualified and have integrity. We found a number of good judges, but not too many. Of 10 judges, maybe two of them meet the criteria. Unfortunately, our nation lacks a system designed to create such judges.

Why are there so few good judges?

Today, anyone can be a judge, as long as he or she holds a law degree, is publicly respected and has passed the civil service examination. In Germany and Japan, judges are picked from the 10 best, both from the perspective of quality and integrity, from all law schools in the country. In Indonesia, all the best law graduates are reluctant to be judges. They choose instead to be a lawyer or a legal consultant. In other words, we must approach the universities to ensure that the law schools do something about this problem.

What was the result of the Judicial Commission's investigation on the presence of a 'justice mafia'?

We have conducted a mapping of the brokers. When we speak of the justice mafia, it means going from upstream to downstream. It's true there are case brokers or agents whose job is to identify who has violated what crime. Where does he get the information? It can be from his own thorough search, but it can also come inside the courts. The brokers' next step is to identify the panel of judges, including who will chair it. Most of these brokers are not well-known lawyers. Some pretend to be legal consultants. So, there are many types of people in these syndicates who sell and buy cases. They can be found at all levels.

How do they operate?

In big cases, they are expected to 'secure' the case way back since the investigation phase. We got this information not just from the public, but also from the lawyers, the judges and former judges.

How many complaints or reports has the commission received so far?

For the past six months, there were 200 requests to monitor cases throughout Indonesia.

That's quite a high number.

Yes. On the one hand, we like that because it shows that public faith in the commission has gone up. But this also demonstrates that people's mistrust of the courts has not changed.

The complete interview is available in this week's edition of Tempo English (July 22).