TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Another scandal has rocked the Constitutional Court. This time, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) arrested Patrialis Akbar, one of the court's nine justices, on bribery charges. After a similar case involving former chief justice Akil Mochtar a few years back, this latest scandal places the credibility of the country's highest court at rock bottom.
As with Akil's case in 2013, the accusation against Patrialis clearly amounts to abuse of power. While Akil accepted a bribe for finding in favor of the Golkar Party in a regional election dispute, the Patrialis case involved a review of Law No. 41/2014 on Livestock Breeding, in which he is alleged to have received a bribe of more than Rp2 billion from a beef importing company.
Three other people have been indicted along with Patrialis, including a businessman who objected to the repeal of a regulation allowing the importation of beef based on zones declared free of foot-and-mouth disease, not on the countries from which it came. This somewhat loose regulation was seen to endanger locally bred livestock, hence the demand for its review and repeal.
Submitted in 2015, the case was in fact similar to the one lodged in 2010. At that time, the Constitutional Court repealed Law No. 18/2009. But four years later, the House of Representatives (DPR) and the government once again inserted the word 'zones' in Law No. 41/2014.
The KPK must pursue this latest bribery case right to the bottom. There could be other judges involved because in order to influence a verdict, bribing one judge is surely not enough. A purge of the court is also necessary given that Patrialis' links to the National Mandate Party (PAN) could further give the court a bad name.
When his name was submitted as a prospective judge in 2013, Patrialis was actually rejected because of his poor record. As justice and human rights minister in 2009-2011, he was often criticized for giving out blanket remissions to people serving time for corruption. Among them was disgraced ex-Bank Indonesia deputy governor Aulia Pohan, who happens to be an in-law of former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Everyone agrees the criteria for a Constitutional Court judge in Indonesia are far too general. The focus is so much on experience and a knowledge of legal issues that it overlooks the importance of integrity and an independent mindset. Moreover, the selection process is entrusted to three of the state's highest institutions, the Supreme Court, the President, and the DPR, which are additionally given the right to nominate three candidates.
Following the Akil Mochtar scandal, the criteria to select Constitutional Court judges was tightened through Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1/2013 (Perppu), under which each nominee is required to demonstrate an unblemished character. Another clause stipulated that a candidate must not have been an active member of a political party for the past seven years. The selection process was expected to be further improved with the participation of the Judicial Commission.
Yet, for all these seemingly airtight rules, adopted from judicial systems of advanced countries, little seemed to change. The problem lay in in the fact that Law No. 4/2014, which subsequently legalized the Perppu, was later rescinded by the Constitutional Court itself through a judicial review, a truly unethical decision.
The Constitutional Court seems to act without restraint. After the Patrialis scandal, the public will find it difficult to trust it any more. The President and the DPR must give a hand in resolving what could now be considered a genuine constitutional crisis. We can learn from other countries with more mature constitutional court systems. In Hungary, for example, the criteria for selecting a constitutional judge are particularly tight. Nominees must not only be independent but have no political party background whatsoever. Similar strict conditions apply in South Korea.
Efforts to improve Indonesia's selection process can be tried again through a another Perppu, which must also limit the powers of the Constitutional Court. Specifically, it should not have the right to conduct judicial reviews of cases involving itself. In other words, it should be denied the right to amend a Perppu once it has been enacted by parliament.
It is simply too much to allow the Constitutional Court such powers. The scandals involving Akil and Patrialis have clearly ruined the reputation of this very important institution. Surely, the public should not have to force the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) to get involved in order to limit the powers of the court through a constitutional amendment. (*)
Read the full story in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine
