How Does Bribery Occur in the Judicial Environment?

Who are the judges involved in the bribery case in the handling of the CPO export corruption case?

Not only the Chief of the South Jakarta District Court, Muhammad Arif Nuryanta, but the Attorney General's Office has also named three judges who presided over the corruption case regarding the provision of crude palm oil (CPO) export facilities during the January-April 2022 period as suspects in alleged bribery or gratification related to case management at the Central Jakarta District Court. They are Djuyamto, who served as the presiding judge, Agam Syarif Baharuddin as a member judge, and Ali Muhtarom as an ad hoc judge.

The three are suspected of having benefited from the Rp 60 billion given by three palm oil corporations as a reward for an acquittal decision, freeing the defendant from all criminal charges. It is estimated that the total amount of money received by the three judges is Rp 22.5 billion.

The designation of three suspects was announced by the Director of Investigation of the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes at the Attorney General's Office, Abdul Qohar, during a press conference at the Attorney General's Office in Jakarta, early Monday morning (14/4/2025). The three suspects were previously interrogated in a marathon session on Sunday (13/4/2025) as witnesses along with four other individuals.

What is the chronology of the bribery of four judges in the CPO export corruption case?

The Director of Investigations at the Attorney General's Office for Special Crimes, Abdul Qohar, revealed that the bribery or gratuity is suspected to have originated from an agreement between Aryanto, the lawyer for a corporate suspect in the cooking oil case, and Wahyu Gunawan, a court clerk who was serving at the Central Jakarta District Court at the time. Through Wahyu Gunawan, Aryanto requested Arif Nuryanta, who was then the Deputy Chief of the Central Jakarta District Court, to handle the cases of three cooking oil corporations that were still suspects in a corruption case involving CPO exports. Aryanto requested that the cases be decided with an acquittal or dismissal in exchange for an offer of IDR 20 billion.

Arif Nuryanta then agreed to Aryanto's request. However, he asked that the amount of money prepared be tripled, amounting to Rp 60 billion. Arif Nuryanta's request was conveyed by Wahyu to Aryanto and was immediately agreed upon. Aryanto then handed over Rp 60 billion to Wahyu Gunawan in the form of US dollars.

After the court session was scheduled, Arif Nuryanta summoned Djuyamto and Agam Syarif Baharuddin and handed over a sum of money equivalent to IDR 4.5 billion. Around September or October 2024, Arif Nuryanta again provided money in US dollar denominations to Djuyamto amounting to IDR 18 billion. Djuyamto distributed the money to Ali Muhtarom and Agam Syarif Baharuddin in front of the BRI Bank at Pasar Baru, South Jakarta.

Why does bribery in the judiciary continue to occur?

Several members of Commission III of the DPR expressed regret over the rampant cases of judicial bribery. Increasing salaries and allowances for judges is deemed insufficient to eliminate the practices of corruption, collusion, and nepotism as long as the mentality of the judges and the supervisory system remain weak.

Member of Commission III of the House of Representatives, Hinca Panjaitan, stated that bribery occurs because perpetrators see economic benefits that outweigh the risks. They base their actions on calculations: "If caught, the penalties are relatively light, or can be negotiated to be lenient."

The Democrat Party politician assessed that, even though there is a Judicial Commission (KY), supervision in the judicial environment is still zero. The issue of supervision is considered to be one of the triggers for repeated bribery cases in judicial institutions. Therefore, according to him, it is time for the KY to be evaluated.

What are the modes of bribery that occur in judicial institutions?

The alleged bribery or gratification case of four judges related to the handling of cases at the Central Jakarta District Court has similarities with the bribery case of judges at the Surabaya District Court, namely the practice of buying and selling cases controlled by a judicial mafia network. Interestingly, the two cases also overlap.

The Attorney General's Office also admitted that the alleged bribery or gratification case that ensnared four judges was triggered by suspicions of the same pattern in the acquittal verdict given by the Surabaya District Court panel of judges against Gregorius Ronald Tannur in the case of the assault on Dini Sera Afrianti to death.

In the bribery case of case management at the Central Jakarta District Court, the panel of judges acquitted three defendants from palm oil corporations. The verdict was allegedly handed down to fulfill the request of the defendants' lawyers who had given Rp 60 billion.

Likewise in the bribery case at the Surabaya District Court which is currently being tried at the Jakarta Corruption Court. The panel of judges acquitted Ronald Tannur to satisfy the defendant's lawyer. In the trial, it was revealed that the panel of judges Ronald Tannur received 48,000 Singapore dollars and 140,000 Singapore dollars which were then divided.

What is the Supreme Court's response to the ongoing prevalence of bribery in judicial institutions?

The Supreme Court expressed its concern because three of its judges were named as suspects in a case of alleged bribery and gratification in the handling of cases at the Central Jakarta District Court. Not only that, the Supreme Court Supervisory Body formed a special task force to investigate alleged violations of the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judges' Conduct.

In addition, the Supreme Court has decided to use a robotic-based panel of judges appointment application (Smart Assembly) at the first-instance and appellate courts to minimize judicial corruption. Supreme Court spokesman Yanto said the system has been implemented at the Supreme Court.