Judge in Bribery Trap

One thing that can be drawn from the case of Judge Muhammad Arif Nuryanta is that low salaries are not a factor in causing judges to be caught up in corruption cases.

15 Apr 2025 18:45 WIB · English

By Edi Abdullah

This article has been translated using AI. See original.

The Attorney General's Office has once again made a breakthrough by arresting the Head of the South Jakarta District Court, Muhammad Arif Nuryanta, in a bribery case related to the handling of corruption involving the provision of crude palm oil (CPO) export facilities.

Arif Nuryanta is suspected of orchestrating the case resulting in an acquittal from all legal charges against the corporate defendants, namely Permata Hijau Group, Wilmar Group, and Musim Mas Group. Arif and three other judges are alleged to have received Rp 60 billion from the three corporations as compensation for the acquittal decision that freed the defendants from all criminal charges.

The other three judges are judges from the Jakarta Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court, namely Djuyamto as chief judge, Agam Syarif Baharuddin as member judge, and Ali Muhtarom as ad hoc judge.

In the case of the bribery verdict of acquittal from all legal charges (onslag van recht vervolging), the defendant's lawyer as well as the court clerk and judge were also named as suspects under the article on the crime of corruption, namely accepting bribes and gratuities with evidence worth Rp. 60 billion.

Long list of cases

This bribery case adds to the long list of cases involving judges in corruption cases.

Last year, a team from the Attorney General's Office also arrested the former Chief of the Surabaya District Court, Rudi Suparmono, in a bribery case related to the acquittal verdict of defendant Ronald Tannur, which resulted in the death of Dini Sera Afrianti. Investigators from the Attorney General's Office secured Rp 21 billion in cash during a search of the suspect's residence.

Previously, three judges from the Surabaya District Court—Erintuah Damanik as the presiding judge, along with Mangapul and Heru Hanindyo as associate judges—were first arrested for the same case. Lawyer Tannur, Lisa Rahmat, was also arrested and named as a suspect.

The three judges and lawyers were ultimately designated as suspects by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office also confiscated Rp 23.2 billion as evidence of corruption crimes.

The development of this case has also implicated another suspect, a former official of the Supreme Court (MA), M Zarof Ricar. From a search of Ricar's residence, investigators seized approximately IDR 920 billion in cash, along with 51 kilograms of gold bars. The revelation of this case has shocked the public and unveiled the veil of law enforcement riddled with mafia networks in the pursuit of justice.

Ironically, some of these cases came to light just after judges' salaries had just been increased.

Destroying the conscience

Jerome Frank, a figure in the legal realism movement, even said that a judge's decision depends on his "breakfast." This means that a judge's decision can sometimes be influenced by certain factors, such as personal and psychological circumstances, including their emotional state and mood.

Bribery can influence the personality and attitude of judges and will certainly impact the verdicts handed down. This sometimes leads to justice being lenient toward the powerful and harsh toward the powerless. Moreover, it can result in rulings that fail to achieve the objectives of justice, utility, and legal certainty in law enforcement.

One thing that can be concluded from the case of the judge who was arrested and became a suspect in a bribery case is that low salaries are not the factor causing judges to be entangled in corruption cases.

Corruption cases occur due to several things, such as greed and opportunity.

With their position as God's representatives in upholding justice, judges who lack integrity have a great opportunity to abuse their position and decisions with the parties in the case.

Another factor is need, such as hedonistic lifestyle and exposure. In this case, the assumption arises that corrupt practices are commonplace. The assumption that the benefits of corruption are more profitable than the punishment received encourages people to continue committing corruption.

Edi Abdullah,Political, Legal, and Democracy Observer at the State Administration Institute (LAN) RI; LAN RI Anti-Corruption Counselor


Credits

Writer:

Edi Abdullah
 | 

Editor:

Sri Hartati Samhadi, Neli Triana
 | 

Language Editor:

Nanik Dwiastuti