Indonesia: Importance of an Independent Judiciary

Indonesia is still dealing with the legacy of decades of authoritarian rule and deeply entrenched corruption. When President Suharto stepped down in 1998 after more than three decades in power, the judiciary was under the control of the executive branch. Through the Justice Ministry, the executive could fire or transfer judges freely. Judges rarely dared rule in favor of anyone challenging the economic or political interests of those in power.

After 1998, reform measures were enacted. Law No. 35 of 1999 established a “one roof” policy in which the judicial branch was to be placed under the authority of the Supreme Court within five years. The transfer of authority took place in 2004, but has not yet restored public confidence in the judiciary due to weak capacity, inadequate training, continuing corruption, and remaining executive interference.

In conflict areas, most notably Aceh, many courts have shut down as judges flee the violence. Those that remain have become a mechanism for rapid convictions, not justice. In Aceh, many suspected separatists were sentenced to long prison terms after cursory trials lasting less than one hour.

In one of the most alarming cases of violence against judges at the national level, which highlighted the damaging legacy of the former regime, Supreme Court Justice Syaifuddin Kartasasmita, was assassinated by hired killers on motorcycles in 2001. Courts later convicted a man the judge had once sentenced to eighteen months in prison: Tommy Suharto, son of the ousted president.

Corruption remains a paramount issue. Indonesia Corruption Watch, an NGO, once described a "court mafia" reaching from the lowest to the highest institutions in the judiciary. In July 2002, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, visited Indonesia. In unusually strong language at the conclusion of his visit he warned that "the judiciary has become a breeding institution for corrupt practices." While much of the final report concerned corruption, on the subject of interference with the judiciary he wrote:

Harassment and intimidation of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, particularly those handling human rights-related cases, is a matter of grave concern. Based upon the information provided to the Special Rapporteur, the governmental authorities appear to have failed in their duty to protect these judges, prosecutors and lawyers in areas
of conflict.

The weakness of the judiciary, including both massive corruption and interference by powerful figures, has significantly hampered Indonesia’s ability to address corruption throughout society or to deal with the ghosts of its past. The acquittals in high-profile corruption cases and in the ad hoc tribunals on East Timor were due in part to weak indictments and poorly conducted prosecution. But the failure to achieve accountability also further diminished the credibility of the judiciary and ensured that the violence in East Timor will continue to dog Indonesia’s international reputation.