Psst... This is a story from an advocate about "what was prepared" in court... (1)

The story of advocates being contacted by court officials or even judges has become common knowledge, and is even considered routine, among parties involved in legal proceedings in court. These advocates are willing to share their experiences, but are reluctant to be quoted. Even if they allow themselves to be quoted, they impose a condition that their identities must not be disclosed.

“I earn my living in court,” said a young advocate.

He is concerned that if his identity is revealed, it could backfire on him during the proceedings. However, the individual admitted to having handled a divorce lawsuit in one of the district courts (non-Muslim marriage) that was actually pending a decision. At one point, he was contacted by an unknown number requesting to meet at the cafeteria of one of the courts in Jakarta. It turned out that the person was a judge in the case being handled, inquiring whether there were any messages from the client.

Feeling that the case would certainly be decided due to the absence of opposition in court, the lawyer was only willing to provide an amount of IDR 1 million. Ultimately, the money was transferred through one of the court employees, handed over inside a vehicle parked at the courthouse. This is not a case that occurred decades ago, but rather just two years ago.

In fact, according to him, there are other cases that also requested payment. He stated that at that time he was asked to provide IDR 2 million for the name change determination in the documents. However, he was reluctant to disclose further details.

The location of the "transaction" in the courthouse was also revealed in the indictment of the alleged bribery case for the acquittal of Gregorius Ronald Tannur, with three judges of the Surabaya District Court, Erintuah Damanik, Mangapul, and Heru Hanindyo, as the defendants. It was mentioned that in July 2024, Lisa Rachmat (Tannur's lawyer) met with Heru and handed over cash amounting to Rp 1 billion and 120,000 Singapore dollars at the Surabaya District Court.

Other lawyers also reported having been contacted by court staff inquiring whether "anything was prepared" for the judge. However, the lawyer was unwilling to comply with the request, which ultimately affected the length of time it took for the verdict to be issued.

Another advocate also said he had been contacted by a court official asking if “anything was prepared” for the judge.

Despite having evidence in the form of conversation history and recorded discussions, he did not report the incident to the Judicial Commission or the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court. This is because the client he represented was reluctant to be embroiled in such a case. Furthermore, as an advocate, he did not want to be "marked" by court officials, which could ultimately affect the handling of other cases.

"The judges may change, but the court clerks and staff can still be there, which means they will meet again," said the lawyer, revealing the dilemma of reporting the irregularities observed. This incident has occurred only in the past few years.

It is not surprising when terms or puns emerge, for instance, the Criminal Code (KUHP) becomes "Give Money, Case Closed," the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) turns into "Give Money, Destroy Case Files," JUDGE (HAKIM) is interpreted as "Contact Me If You Want to Win," or essentially, when dealing with the LAW, there is no need to bother, just "Donate Money If You Want to Win."

The Head of the Legal and Public Relations Bureau of the Supreme Court, Sobandi, last week did not deny the existence of transactions in the handling of a case. According to him, this is driven by the desire to win cases through various means. The appointment of a panel of judges to handle a case has become a commonly known practice.

Even before the case was distributed to the panel, most parties were already familiar with the judges who could decide in accordance with their expectations. This step, according to him, has been attempted to be closed with the Smart Panel application, which allows for the appointment of judges to be conducted by artificial intelligence.

For the time being, the application has only been implemented in the Supreme Court. According to the plan, by the end of this year, the application will be used in district courts and high courts. "(So) there will be no more requests. It just depends on which judge is assigned," said Sobandi.

What is happening in court today, reaffirms the truth of the words of the Dutch legal expert, BM Taverne. He once said, "Give me good law, good law enforcement, good officers of justice, good police officers, and I have good legal advice". This means "give me good judges, prosecutors, police and advocates, then I will eradicate crime even without a single piece of law".

In other words, "give me a good judge and prosecutor, and even with bad laws, I can bring about justice." These words also indicate that no matter how good the rules or laws are, without being supported by law enforcement officials who are good, possess morality and integrity, and are professional, the outcomes of law enforcement will be poor. It is even more unfortunate if the rules are already bad, and the law enforcement officials are also poor.

Taverne's perspective also implies the importance of oversight bodies within the judicial institutions. In the context of Indonesia, oversight of judges and court officials has actually been carried out by many parties. Internal oversight is conducted by the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court, assisted by local court leaders through a system of direct supervision. Additionally, there is the Director General of Judicial Administration who performs administrative oversight of the general judiciary.

On the external side, there is the Judicial Commission which has been mandated to oversee the conduct of judges at the first instance, appellate, and cassation/review levels. Therefore, if there are practices of case trading, the performance of both internal and external supervisory institutions will certainly be called into question.

However, despite the supervision being conducted in such a manner, practices of deviation still occur. At least the cases of the buying and selling of cases that have been revealed in several arrests of judges over the past few years, both by the Corruption Eradication Commission and the Attorney General's Office.

This began with Supreme Court Justice Sudrajad Dimyati, who was caught in a hand-catching operation by the KPK in September 2022, followed by three judges from the Surabaya District Court in 2024. Most recently, the detention of the inactive Head of the South Jakarta District Court, Muhammad Arif Nuryanta, on April 12, was followed by the detention of three judges from the Jakarta Corruption Court, related to bribery for acquittal verdicts for three corporations in the case of corruption involving the provision of export facilities for crude palm oil (CPO).

Of the various modes of judicial corruption, Miko said, the one that is still a big problem is transactional practices related to decisions.

The Indonesian Court Monitoring Society of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia (MaPPI FH UI) in its 2017 research titled "Patterns and Prevalence of Court Corruption in DKI Jakarta" elaborated on practices that were still occurring up to that year. At least 21 modes of corruption were identified at that time, including requests for service fees during registration or the determination of the panel that would handle the case, negotiation of verdicts, marathon trials, illegal levies (pungli) for the issuance of certificates of no legal proceedings/no criminal record, fees for entering evidence, registration of lawsuits/appeals/cassation, requests for copies of verdicts, power of attorney, summons of witnesses/parties, trial schedules, and others.

However, according to Miko Ginting, a former spokesperson for the Judicial Commission (KY) who is currently engaged in the legal profession, there have been changes and improvements in court services. Several practices of deviation such as requests for service fees, illegal levies, scheduling of hearings, and the lack of information regarding delays in the appeal/cassation case files, according to Miko, have become rare.

According to Miko, there have been improvements in the court service system. "The Integrated One-Stop Service (PTSP) at the court is also quite good. E-Court has significantly helped reduce the potential for corrupt practices, although the system needs to be continuously refined," said Miko.

Among the various modes of judicial corruption, Miko stated that a significant issue remains the transactional practices related to verdicts. "From recent cases, it is evident that the space for corrupt practices mostly exists at the point of the verdict," he revealed.

To control the potential for corrupt practices in the judiciary, an attorney from Themis Indonesia law firm, Ibnu Syamsu, recently reminded that any form of communication, no matter how trivial, such as an attorney inquiring about the court schedule from the case clerk, should be avoided. This is because once communication occurs, it opens the opportunity to discuss other matters, including the practice of case favoritism.

"The collusion among the clerk, judge, and advocate does not recognize the size of the court, whether class IA or II. This easily occurs because communication among advocates, bailiffs, clerks, and judges is very simple. This becomes the task of the Supreme Court to improve oversight," said Ibnu Syamsu.

Sobandi stated that to address this issue, the Supreme Court has made efforts by utilizing the Smart Assembly for the appointment of judges who will preside over cases. However, Sobandi acknowledged that there remains a possibility of human intervention in the appointment of the panel of judges handling the case. The system still allows for the leadership of the Supreme Court to replace the panel, especially if any member is on leave or unwell.

"But it is recorded in the system," Sobandi emphasized.

According to him, currently, there are several courts using the application, both in the general court environment, religious courts, and state administrative courts, which are used as pilot projects and are assessed for the feasibility of using this artificial intelligence. The target is for smart councils to be implemented in all courts by the end of this year.

Sobandi admitted that realizing a clean judiciary is an ongoing effort or process. Likewise with improvements or innovations made to answer various problems. In the context of the Smart Assembly, the Supreme Court is considering improving it by including conflict of interest factors and the appointment of judges down to the judge's personal, including data updates on the judge's readiness to handle cases (not on leave or not sick).

What the Supreme Court is striving for through the Smart Assembly aligns with the recommendations expressed by a member of the Judicial Commission in the fields of Human Resources, Advocacy, Law, Research, and Development, Binziad Kadafi. He highlighted the smart assembly work system that appoints a panel of judges based on teams established every six months in a plenary chamber meeting. He hopes that the appointment of the panel by artificial intelligence will be carried out down to the personal level of the judges.

So, what about the anticipation of decision-making that is at the heart of justice? In this regard, the steps that can be taken include guidance and supervision, as well as placing judges of integrity and quality in strategic courts. Sobandi revealed that the latest promotion mutation pattern has already been implemented. There is a guarantee from officials at the echelon in the Supreme Court regarding the names that are subsequently transferred from the regions to the class IA special courts, ensuring that the judges in question are competent and of integrity.

Criminal law lecturer at Trisakti University, Albert Aries, assessed that the integrity factor for a judge is an absolute requirement (conditio sine qua non). In essence, if you want to live comfortably, then the profession of judge can be chosen. On the other hand, if you want to be rich, do not have a career as a judge but rather become an entrepreneur.

To maintain the integrity of judges, Albert stated that the Young Chief of Supervision of the Supreme Court, the Directorate General of Judicial Administration, and the Supervisory Body of the Supreme Court need to synergize and coordinate with law enforcement agencies such as the Attorney General's Office or the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Judges with a bad record should not be promoted.

Meanwhile, the role of the Supreme Court in selecting judges in strategic locations but vulnerable to judicial corruption is important. Judges with bad records should not be promoted. On the other hand, judicial judges and judges in regions with good track records need to fill the five district court areas that have commercial courts (Central Jakarta, Surabaya, Medan, Semarang, and Makassar).

"Why is the commercial court a parameter? Because that's where all business and business disputes end up," said Albert.

Binziad Kadafi said that what makes it difficult for supervisory institutions such as the KY to uncover the practice of buying and selling decisions is because it is done in secret. Usually, if negotiations are smooth and agreements are met, everything just goes by. This becomes a problem if it turns out that one party reneges on the agreement, or has made a deal but the results are not in accordance with what was desired.

In a context like this, one of the injured parties will report the transactional incident to the supervisory agency or even law enforcement officers (speak up). "But generally, judicial corruption is, right, shaking hands, the briber is happy, the bribed is happy. Going out, right, shaking hands. When the situation is shaking hands like that, it's quiet. The KY cannot enter with the various limitations of the authority it has," said Binziad.

In this context, he urged various law enforcement agencies to focus on corruption within the judiciary. Furthermore, the President needs to mandate the KPK or the Attorney General's Office to concentrate on addressing this issue, considering the covert nature of bribery in handling cases. "There needs to be coercive efforts," he stated.

Therefore, the President and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court need to join forces to eradicate corruption in Indonesia. From the perspective of the Supreme Court, according to Binziad, Chief Justice Sunarto, who has strong legitimacy (having been elected with a majority vote), can leverage this momentum to implement improvement measures.