VZCZCXRO7289
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHJA #0514/01 0570612
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 260612Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY JAKARTA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3439
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS PRIORITY
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 0471
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 1360
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 JAKARTA 000514 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EAP/MTS, INL FOR BOULDIN 
DOJ FOR OPDAT FOR ALEXANDRE/LEHMANN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2/22/2017 
TAGS: PREL PGOV KJUS PCRM KTIA KCOR ID
SUBJECT: JUDICIAL COMMISSION FAILS TO ADVANCE REFORM 
 
Classified By: Political Officer Adam West for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) The Judicial Commission, formed in 2005 to 
strengthen the accountability and integrity of the judiciary, 
has fallen far short of expectations and has yet to play a 
constructive role in judicial reform.  The Commission's 
primary task, to monitor the behavior of judges and recommend 
sanctions against those who fail to meet certain ethical 
standards, was both controversial and bound to provoke 
opposition from the judiciary.  However, the Commission's 
aggressive tactics soon went beyond its initial mandate and 
brought it into open conflict with the Supreme Court.  As a 
result, the Commission's supervisory authority was challenged 
and finally annulled by the Constitutional Court in August 
¶2006.  The Commission's other main responsibility, the 
selection of Supreme Court candidates, has been equally 
problematic.  Parliament has so far refused to act on any of 
the Commission's initial recommendations, and the future of 
the nomination process is in doubt.   While the Commission 
still has its defenders, many observers attribute its 
problems to its own failure to properly exercise its original 
mandate.  End Summary 
 
A Needed Instrument for Reform 
------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (U) Legal uncertainty has been repeatedly cited as a major 
concern in corruption and investment climate reports about 
Indonesia.  The judiciary has long been plagued by 
allegations of corruption and a culture of impunity summed up 
in the oft-repeated phrase "judicial mafia."  Under the 
Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to 
investigate and sanction judges who violate ethical norms. 
However, the court itself has been the subject of corruption 
allegations and justices have been reluctant to wield their 
supervisory powers forcefully. 
 
¶3. (U) In an attempt to address these issues, Parliament in 
2003 authorized the creation of a Judicial Commission (known 
by the initials KY in Indonesian) to improve judicial 
integrity and accountability and serve as a catalyst for 
judicial reform.  The body was inaugurated in August 2005 
with the appointment of seven members, including several 
legal scholars, a former parliamentarian and a former 
prosecutor.  Busyro Muqqodas, former Dean of Law at Indonesia 
Islamic University and member of the NGO Indonesia Corruption 
Monitoring, was selected to head the group.  Two foreign 
donors, the Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia 
and the Norwegian Embassy, provided initial support.  The 
KY's specific tasks were twofold:  to investigate allegations 
of judicial misconduct; and to nominate candidates to fill 
vacancies on the Supreme Court.  Eighteen months later, the 
KY has been stripped of authority on the first count and 
largely failed on the second, and is struggling to remain 
relevant to the judicial reform agenda. 
 
Supervising The Courts 
---------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) After its inauguration in August 2005, the KY took 
an aggressive approach to its role as monitor of judges' 
behavior.  It also adopted what Embassy contacts describe as 
an overly expansive view of what constitutes judicial 
misconduct.  The KY's non-binding Draft Code of Ethics, which 
it unilaterally released in September 2006, defines judicial 
misconduct as including not only unethical behavior on the 
part of judges but also court decisions that, while 
justifiable on legal grounds, do not sufficiently reflect the 
"community's sense of justice."  This ill-defined concept 
seemingly allowed the KY to challenge court decisions 
regardless of whether or not there was evidence of 
impropriety. 
 
¶5. (C) The KY's invitation to the Indonesian public to submit 
complaints about judicial decisions led to a flood of letters 
that reportedly reached over 1,000 by November of 2006. 
According to KY member Chatarramasjid, the KY carefully 
screened out frivolous complaints and focused only on the 200 
or so considered to have merit. However, the KY's findings 
more often than not took issue with the content of the 
decision rather than the behavior of the judge.  Moreover, 
the KY chose to air their findings through the media rather 
than through institutional channels, a practice that Embassy 
contacts told us was considered unprofessional by legal 
 
JAKARTA 00000514  002 OF 003 
 
 
practitioners.  By the end of 2006 the KY had submitted the 
names of 18 judges to the Supreme Court for disciplinary 
action.  Seven judges were suspended by the Court for periods 
of between six months and two years, representing a modest 
success for the KY.  The rest received written reprimands. 
 
Mounting Altercation with the Supreme Court 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The light punishments led some KY members to 
complain about lack of support from the Court, many of whose 
members were opposed to judges being subject to supervision 
by a body outside the Court's control.  The KY's public 
criticism of the content of judicial decisions, in turn, led 
to complaints by judges and other legal experts that the KY 
had gone beyond its mandate and was now second-guessing 
judges' decisions in the manner of an appellate court. 
 
¶7. (SBU) As the debate grew more contentious the KY took aim 
at the Supreme Court itself.  In January 2006, the KY issued 
a list of Justices that it considered to be "problematic" and 
recommended that President Yudhoyono compel all 49 Supreme 
Court Justices to undergo "re-evaluation" to determine 
whether they were suitable to continue to serve on the court. 
 Despite initial expressions of support, Yudhoyono did not 
take any action on the proposal.  No official explanation was 
ever given for this, but the effect was to further damage the 
KY's public image and public confidence in its effectiveness. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Undeterred, the KY then requested that Chief Justice 
Bagir Manan appear before it to answer questions about 
bribery allegations made by the lawyer of Probo Sutedjo, a 
prominent businessman who had been convicted on corruption 
charges.  Manan refused, stating that he had already given 
testimony to the Anti-Corruption Commission (KPK), the legal 
authority investigating the case.  While this conflict was 
playing out in the press, the Supreme Court struck back: 
more than 30 Justices filed suit against the KY with the 
Constitutional Court, claiming that the legal basis for the 
KY's judicial oversight role was ambiguous, and that KY 
actions were threatening judicial independence.  The 
Constitutional Court agreed, ruling on August 23, 2006 that 
the provision granting the KY the power of judicial oversight 
was unconstitutional. 
 
Supreme Court Nominees: A Flawed Process 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) The KY's other major responsibility, the nomination 
of candidates to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, has 
also remained largely without effect.  One legitimate 
criticism that can be leveled against the KY is that the 
number of candidates that the KY submitted to Parliament for 
consideration was less than the number required.  According 
to the authorizing legislation, the KY should nominate three 
candidates for each vacancy on the court, i.e. 18 candidates 
for the six vacant seats.  However, after reviewing some 130 
candidates, the KY submitted only six names to Parliament, 
i.e., one for each vacancy.  Parliamentarians publicly 
criticized the move, which was interpreted by some as an 
attempt to reduce Parliament's role to that of a rubber 
stamp.  The legislature eventually decided to put off 
consideration of the six until the KY submitted the 
appropriate number of names.  The KY immediately reopened the 
nomination process and invited the Supreme Court and NGOs to 
submit nominees.  Press reports state that 59 names have been 
submitted so far; 33 of these were among those whom the KY 
had rejected in 2006. 
 
¶10. (C) Aside from the number of candidates, criticism has 
also surfaced about the quality of the six who were nominated 
and the selection process itself, which included an essay 
exercise, a health examination, and a psychological 
assessment which KY members describe as a "moral 
examination."  One legal expert privately described the 
assessments as more suitable to college entrance requirements 
than to tests for high court judges, whom he said should be 
judged based on their prior case decision records.  Moreover, 
one of the six nominees is currently under investigation for 
corruption allegations.  Justice Djoko Sarwoko told us that 
members of the Supreme Court were disappointed that only two 
of the six nominees submitted to Parliament had any prior 
experience as judges.  Perhaps most damaging to the KY's 
future, Aulia Rahman, who serves on the Parliamentary 
Sub-committee responsible for evaluating the nominees, 
confided that he no longer has confidence in the KY's 
capacity to recruit good candidates. 
 
JAKARTA 00000514  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
Losing support 
-------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) The KY continues to have supporters in the press 
and the NGO community, for whom its goals remain relevant, 
despite the KY's missteps in execution.  The August 23 
Constitutional Court decision was widely criticized, with 
Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh and others publicly 
declaring it a "victory for corruptors."  However, the KY's 
credibility within the judicial community, which has viewed 
it with suspicion from the start, has clearly fallen.  So has 
its support in Parliament.  Several contacts told us that the 
KY is no longer respected by the members of other legal 
institutions and asserted that its leadership was more 
interested in garnering headlines than in serving the public 
interest.  Moreover, six months after the August 23 decision, 
Parliament has yet to take any action to restore or otherwise 
redefine the KY's supervisory function, despite considerable 
public support for doing so.  The Judiciary's implicit 
aversion to external oversight made it inevitable that the 
KY's mission would be problematic.  However, its own poor 
performance has alienated many of its supporters within the 
DPR and left it nearly toothless.  The KY will need to change 
course significantly if it is to play a constructive role as 
an instrument of reform. 
HEFFERN