Breakdown of Communication Between Court Officials and Litigants

JAKARTA, KOMPAS - The Supreme Court's decision to rotate 199 judges and 68 clerks, the majority of whom are judges and clerks serving in Jakarta and Surabaya, has been appreciated by many. However, this step by the Supreme Court must be accompanied by stricter oversight of both judges and court staff. Their communication with the parties involved in the cases must also be severed.

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 influencing case outcomes.

"The manipulation by 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 straightforward. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to improve oversight," said Ibnu Syamsu, one of the advocates at Themis Indonesia law firm, when contacted on Thursday (24/4/2025).

As previously reported, the Supreme Court has conducted a large-scale rotation of judges serving in district courts in the Jakarta and Surabaya areas. At least 61 judges who were originally assigned to four district courts in Jakarta and 10 judges in the Surabaya court have been redistributed to various regions, replaced by judges who were previously serving in the Supreme Court and district courts in other areas. This move follows the arrest of the Chairman of the South Jakarta District Court, Muhammad Arif Nuryanto, on April 11, and the detention of three judges from the Jakarta Corruption Court, namely Djuyamto, Ali Muhtarom, and Agam Syarif.

According to Ibnu, the Supreme Court (MA) needs to promptly improve the oversight system for judges and court officials under its jurisdiction. He assesses that the manipulation of cases in the courts has become increasingly blatant, even infecting both higher and lower courts. One way to erode the suspicion of such manipulation is to sever the communication channels between judges, court staff, and the parties involved.

The issue is that communication between the parties and court staff sometimes becomes unavoidable. This is especially true in district courts where the hearing schedules are unpredictable. In fact, there are quite a few advocates who then request the clerk to prioritize their hearings, considering the large number of cases scheduled for that day.

"Just request the trial schedule (and) give a code to the clerk. For example, number 3, that code corresponds to the clerk. This means they have already communicated," said Ibnu.

Such communication, according to him, can open opportunities to discuss other matters. In fact, all parties understand that those who go to court certainly want to win. "And, once communication is opened, it creates opportunities to discuss other things," he stated.

Although the e-court service is currently in use, it has not been able to sever communication between the parties. The e-court is only capable of addressing the need to expedite cases.

Just request the hearing schedule (and) give a code to the clerk. For example, number 3, that code corresponds to the clerk. This means they have already communicated.

Therefore, he requested that the Supreme Court also needs to streamline the trial process. The Supreme Court needs to establish a definite mechanism for trials, similar to what has already begun to be implemented by the religious courts.

"The Religious Court is quite organized regarding hearings. The District Court should be able to do the same, for instance, by providing certainty in the hearing schedule. Judges should not act arbitrarily, so that advocates do not need to send WhatsApp messages to the court clerks for the schedule. This creates a gap for communication," said Ibnu.

Such incidents should not occur if the court has improved the hearing schedule and adhered to it in an orderly manner. The hearing schedule could actually be announced on the e-court without the need for communication with the parties involved.

He also argued that supervision of judges and court staff could be effective if the court leaders appointed by the Supreme Court are individuals of integrity. At the very least, court leaders can conduct ongoing supervision without having to wait for reports from the public.

So far, he has observed that oversight in the courts has not been functioning as expected. Internal supervision should be conducted without having to wait for reports, but should be particularly focused on cases with significant weight or extraordinary circumstances.

In addition, the Supreme Court and court leaders also need to conduct early detection of incoming cases. For instance, identifying the type of case, the actors involved, the extent of the losses, and who the opposition is. With early detection and a tight screening process, this will reduce the movements of judges during the examination of cases.

"So, every case has a color status. It's red, green, or yellow. So is the court," said Ibnu.

Centra Initiative researcher Erwin Natosmal Oemar stated that the placement of judges with integrity in strategic courts through a well-structured promotion and rotation system remains a homework assignment for the Supreme Court. The rules for promotion and rotation actually exist, but they have become somewhat of a paper tiger, resulting in unequal access for judges to a proper rotation process.

Judges who are clean and do not want to interfere with cases do not get access to the proper promotion mutation process. This, according to him, has an impact on the pat-gulipat of case management and perpetuates judicial corruption in the judicial institution.

"Therefore, the massive mutation efforts carried out by the Supreme Court need to be welcomed. I hope this process continues and is sustainable, arising from within the Supreme Court, not pressure from outside," he said. If such a thing can be continued, Erwin is sure that this will have an impact on the quality of decisions and end the black market for buying and selling decisions.

The Head of the Legal and Public Relations Bureau of the Supreme Court, Sobandi, stated that after a large-scale reshuffle of judges and registrars through promotions and transfers, the Supreme Court is now intensifying the utilization of Smart Majelis across all courts in Indonesia. The application, which has been developed since 2024, is currently only implemented at the Supreme Court. This year, it is hoped that the Smart Majelis application can also be implemented in the courts under the Supreme Court.

Smart Majelis is an artificial intelligence-based application used to automatically select a panel of judges based on qualifications, competencies, and the workload of the judges. This application is touted as a solution to the conventional panel appointment system, which has been deemed vulnerable to subjective intervention, lacking transparency, and uneven in the distribution of cases.

The Supreme Court hopes to establish a judicial system that is more transparent, accountable, and of high integrity, in line with the spirit of bureaucratic reform and quality public service.

With this application, cases that have received a registration number will be sent to the Smart Majelis system. Smart Majelis will recommend the composition of the panel to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the local court chair.

According to Sobandi, the system is automatic and cannot be manually intervened, except when the judge is ill or on leave. Any changes that occur are recorded in the system with written justification.

The Supreme Court, Sobandi added, aims to implement the Smart Assembly for first-instance and appellate courts by the end of 2025 at the latest. The application of this program will begin in several courts designated by the respective directorates general of each judicial environment as a pilot project.

"MA hopes to establish a judicial system that is more transparent, accountable, and of high integrity, in line with the spirit of bureaucratic reform and quality public service," said Sobandi.