Justices’ decision slammed

Nine Supreme Court justices’ decision to extend their mandatory retirement age was criticised by a retired judge. Former Justice Muladi, who is now the governor of the National Resilience Institute, said that the authority to decide whether justices deserved to have their length of service extended should rest with the House of Representatives which selected them, and the President, who installed them. Among the nine judges who extended their mandatory retirement age in January was Supreme Court Chief Justice, Bagir Manan. The judges said they deserved the tenure extensions because of their ‘outstanding achievements’.

The Jakarta Post.com, 10 March 2006

Court does teachers justice

The Constitutional Court ruled that the 2006 state budget had violated the Constitution by allocating only 9.1 per cent for education. The Constitution says the state has to provide at least 20 per cent of the annual budget for the education sector. Last year the Court turned down a lawsuit filed by eight teachers against the government over the same issue. In the latest verdict, the Court avoided declaring ‘the state budget is entirely void’, limiting itself to one sector (education) only. Thus, the government and the house have no way to avoid implementing the Constitution.

Despite the mandatory 20 per cent budget allocation since 2003, education expenditure has, until 2006, remained far below the mark. The political will to prioritise education has been lacking. The Court decision will help the public understand the rule of law better. There are too many examples in Indonesia in which legislation is interpreted according to the wishes and interests of the few. Now it is up to the government and the house to comply with the Constitutional message. We acknowledge this is not an easy job.

Rusli Yunus, The Jakarta Post.com, 8 April 2006

President Yudhoyono announced that the government was trying to bring to reality a budget allocation of 20 per cent to education. While 20 per cent was not yet achieved, the government and the parliament were working towards realising this goal in the 2007 budget. The President was speaking at a consultation meeting which was being conducted in response to a recent Constitutional Court decision that held that while the budget allocation of funds to education was at the level of 9.1 per cent it breached the Constitution’s mandated requirement of 20 per cent.

Supreme Court judges filed a judicial review request for the Constitutional Court to scrap the Judicial Commission’s authority to dismiss them. The request was submitted by 40 Supreme Court judges as the Judicial Commission was planning to review all justices as part of the reforms in the judicial system. ‘The justices believe that the Judicial Commission can only carry out selection tests for new Supreme Court judges, but not monitor the work of existing judges who have already been selected, let alone to discharge them’, Constitutional Court secretary-general Janedri M Gaffar said about the request.

If former president Suharto was following the trial of eight-yearold Muhammad ‘Radju’ Azwar, he probably experienced some relief that the judge in the District Court in North Sumatra who found the boy guilty of assaulting a schoolmate, did not preside over his corruption trial. Just appoint Tiurmaida as the new chief justice of the Supreme Court and watch her handle the country’s biggest criminals. With her on the highest court, no doubt Indonesia would be free from corruption in no time.

Despite the public outcry over trying an eight year-old boy in a criminal court, Judge Tiurmaida refused to halt Radju’s trial, saying there was no legal reason for stopping the proceedings. Judge Tiurmaida even ordered Radju’s detention to prevent the young boy from escaping justice, and had him placed in a cell along with adult prisoners, although she later denied this. Tiurmaida took a very hard line with the defendant, reportedly telling Radju that she could tell just by looking at him he was a ‘bad boy’. She found him guilty of assaulting a 14-year-old schoolmate.

And what happened with Suharto? In 2000 a South Jakarta District Court dropped a US$571 million graft charge against him after a team of doctors concluded he would never be healthy enough to stand trial. His city arrest order was lifted, and the court ordered the case be struck off the court list. Unlike the eight year-old boy, Suharto was never detained. How is it that the judge interpreted the law to mean that the court had the right to drop Suharto’s case, while Judge Tiurmaida came to exactly the opposite conclusion with Radju?