A concern on how weak the Supreme Court?s verdicts are on corruptions in Indonesia has started the idea to start a research by a team of lecturers from UPH Law Faculty,…
|
|
|
(left – right) Jamin Ginting, Udin Silalahi, Christine Susanti, Henry P. Panggabean, Robertus Robert, Wijayanto |
|
A concern on how weak the Supreme Court?s verdicts are on corruptions in Indonesia has started the idea to start a research by a team of lecturers from UPH Law Faculty, titled ?The Integrity of Supreme Court Judges in the Verdicts of Corruptions as Criminal Offenses in Indonesia?. The research result has shown that Supreme Court Judges have not been consistent in handling and investigating corruption cases that happen in Indonesia. The punishments given to the defendants, both jail and fine were not to the maximum level. Judges? verdicts were much milder than the indicments from the prosecuting attorneys. Those punishments didn?t give any deterrent effects to the defendants. They also didn?t consider the nation?s loss or even compensations . Besides that, Supreme Court judges have been influenced by other factors outside law, such as the defendants? ages, positions, institutions, and residencies. The research result was elaborated in the Seminar ?The Analysis on Supreme Court Judges? Integrity in the the Verdicts of Corruptions as Criminal Offenses in Indonesia?, Thursday, August 19, 2010 at UPH Campus, Lippo Village. The team was chaired by Dr. Jur. Udin Silalahi, SH.LLM, who is now a law lecturer and Chief Editor of Journal Law Review ? UPH Law Faculty, also consists of two team members ? Jamin Ginting, SH.MH. and Christine Susanti, SH.Mhum. To answer questions in the research on the consistencies of Supreme Court Judges when investigating and concluding on corruption cases, this 2-month-research was using a normative law method, supported by secondary data of written Acts, legal notes on the Acts process, judges? verdicts, as well as other legal documents. A data analysis was done qualitatively using 20 sample cases of Supreme Court decisions. In that occasion, Dr. Sukron Kamil (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) as the moderator, gave opportunities to 3 sources: Dr. Henry P. Panggabean, SH., MH. ? a former Supreme Court judge ? who is now active as a lawyer and lecturer at UPH Law Faculty; Robertus Robert ? a Secretary General of Democracy Education Association (Perhimpunan Pendidikan Demokrasi/P2D); and Wijayanto, MPP ? a representative of TIRI, to give overviews on the research being discussed. Dr. Henry P. Panggabean said that judges? integrity should refer to two basic things: conceptual and applicable ones. He referred to 3 boundaries of judges? independencies from J.Djohansyah, which are rule of law, integrity, and professions?ethics as the conceptual base. Meanwhile, the applicable base was referred to 3 standard elements of case verdicts by judges from Mertokusumo. They are: legalcertainty, benefits, fairness & properness. At the end of the discussion, Panggabean gave several suggestions, such as the need to prevent corruption cases, to delegate training & controlling at the level of High Court, and the need to apply training & controlling systems towards judges using value system. Meanwhile, two other speakers, Wijayanto & Robertus Robert stated that at the time being there hasn?t been any fix parameter to be made standards for integrity. However, law practices in these corruption cases can be used as one of the standards. The increasing corruption cases could indicate the low level of integrity and vice versa. Besides that, another factor that becomes a supporting factor for integrity is ?certainty? ? how certain a Supreme Court judge when making a verdict in a particular case. The next factor ? in the democracy framework at this moment ? is that a Supreme Court judge is not supposed to just fulfill his professional duties, but also to form ?a public trust?. Moreover, he / she should handle 70 ? 90 various cases per month. Based on those factors mentioned above, the 2 speakers agreed on the result of the research which concluded on the inconsistency of Supreme Court Judges when dealing with corruption cases. This seminar was attended by law practitioners, such as representatives from Banten High Court, specialized corruption judges, and Judicial Commission, as well as law academicists. The participants appreciated this research with some critics of course, especially on the research method and analysis towards considerations of judges? verdicts. Next, it was advisable to conduct further research, and it is expected to be beneficial for the future law needs. (feb) ? UPH Media Relations |
