By: Firdaus ArifinWriter: Lecturer Constitutional Law Section and Secretary of Constitutional Studies Center Faculty of Law, University of Pasundan, Bandung, West Java, Indonesian.
Published by: the Daily Tribun Jabar, 8 Januari 2009.
IF there is a judicial institution of the most feared by the corrupt in Indonesia today, the Court must Corruption (Corruption). Since first established on 26 July 2004 by Presidential Decree (Decree) No. 59 of 2004 concerning the establishment of the Corruption Court in the Central Jakarta District Court, the Corruption Court has incised some remarkable achievements. All the defendants are prosecuted corruption cases at the Corruption Court was led to jail. Until now there has not recorded any cases of corruption that defendants acquitted (vrijspraak) by the Corruption Court. In fact, when evaluated in a comprehensive performance results Corruption Court as a new institution "whole corn" in the anti-corruption efforts can be said is quite good and satisfactory, if compared to the results of the General Court in kineja resolve corruption cases so far.
This at least can be proved from the success of the Corruption Court reveals many cases of corruption of state officials. Many of these state officials who eventually became defendants sentenced to prison even lead to no light.
Some examples of corruption cases successfully resolved well by the Corruption Court is the purchase of helicopters made by the former Governor of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Abdullah Puteh, cases of corruption in the General Elections Commission (KPU), which involves the Commission Chairman Nazaruddin Samsudin and Mulyana Wira Kusumah, cases of corruption in the Department Transport involving the former Chief Financial Relations Directorate General of Sea Muhammad Harun Let Let and former Director General of Sea Transportation Secretary Tarsisius Walla, corruption cases the purchase of land for the construction of the Judicial Commission (KY) KY commissioner involving Irawady Joenoes, corruption investigation process BLBI discontinuation of Prosecutors involved Urip Tri Gunawan, and cases of corruption flows Indonesian Banking Development Foundation (YPPI) Bank Indonesia (BI) to a number of members of the House involving former BI governor Burhanuddin Abdullah.
When examined more deeply, honestly have recognized the success of the Corruption Court in plunging the country's corrupt to the "hotel without cost" can not be separated from the role of special judge (ad hoc) Corruption. The ad hoc judges Corruption has been working professionally and faithfully maintain the integrity and credibility of the Corruption Court.
But alas, the performance of ad hoc judges Corruption Court is quite successful in prosecuting corruption cases, it appeared that not reap something positive, the response that occurs on the contrary, the role of judges ad hoc Corruption Court would soon be a memory. Because, through political legislation (law making process), now there is a great design to remove the existence of ad hoc judges Corruption Court.
Design erase the existence of ad hoc judges of the Court begins Tipior elimination of Article 7 paragraph (2) and (3) of Act No. 5 of 2004 on the Supreme Court governing the existence of ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court.
In addition, efforts pembonsaian ad hoc judges role Corruption Court can be seen clearly in the Bill Eradication of Corruption (Corruption Bill) currently being discussed by the Government with the Parliament.
In Article 27 of the Corruption Bill, stated that in check, hear, and decide corruption criminal trials, conducted by Justice of odd numbered at least three judges and the maximum of five judges, made up of career judges and judges ad hoc composition determined chairman of the court and Chief Justice (MA).
Article that it is not explicitly remove the existence of ad hoc judges Corruption Court. However, the problem lies precisely in the composition of Justice of the Corruption Court. Properly, the article expressly states that the composition of ad hoc judges Corruption is more than career judges. Because, do not let the existence of ad hoc judges Corruption just a mere accessory, even a direct object. For example, only one judge ad hoc for the Assembly with five judges. In addition, the discretion of determining the composition of the Panel of Judges Corruption is given to the head of the Supreme Court and the Chairman also feared it opens new opportunities for judicial mafia leader to influence the court in the judge pointed.
Finally, we all hope that before the Corruption Bill passed into law, the government and Parliament can immediately make changes (revisions) to the formulation of Article 27 Draft Corruption. Since we all agree that corruption is an extraordinary crime (extraordinary crime) that requires treatment in a way that institutions and non-conventional nature such as courts and judges ad hoc Corruption. If not, then prepare this country will soon be drowned out by the corrupt.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment