---

[27/6/08]

Judges and attorneys learned to build clean trials to the Constitutional Court

Law enforcing institutions kept on under the spotlight lately, especially the Attorney of General Offices. Because of some scoundrels, people’s perception to this institution became negative. To restore the credential was not an easy task to do.

 

For that, every law enforcers needed to have some integrity: one word and act, one thought and mind. The officers in the courts had to impose the importance of a clean life, the life with integrity. “Don’t say A in the morning and act B in the afternoon,” said Jimly Asshiddiqie.

 

The statement was delivered in front of members of Judges and Attorney training Batch V and VI in 2008 that visited the Constitutional Court, Friday (27/6). The visit was conducted in the effort of having similar perception to build clean courts.

 

The participants were not only coming from Jakarta. One of the participants, Nelson Victor, was the Section Head of Intelligence in the District Court of Buntok, Central Kalimantan. There was also Rustam, a judge in Atambua District Court; and Fritz Nare from Wonogiri District Court. The visit was joined by 26 judges and 31 attorneys. During the visit, unfortunately could not see directly the process of case registration until the verdict because on that day there was no trial.

 

The statement from Jimly could be seen as an advise for the young judges and attorneys related to many cases rising that involved the law enforcers. One of the cases was the disclosure of bribery case and blackmailing involving Attorney Tri Gunawan, and involving first ranked officer in the Attorney General Office.

 

Besides creating the same words and actions, Jimly also stressed on the professionalism of law enforcers. Judges and attorneys had to work hard, according to their rights and duties. Judges and Attorneys should not have taken what was not their rights, or what became others authorities. Law enforcers should be brave to refuse what did not belong to them. In fact, they needed to have a principle of giving more than receiving. “Don’t take other people’s authority,” advised the Professor in Constitutional Law.

 

Independency not acting recklessly

Apart from integrity, a judge needed to have an independent attitude. Yet, the judge independency did not mean to act recklessly; dared to make decision against the mainstream, or anything else to be called brave. When putting superordinates, relatives or familiar people before the court, a judge had to make up his mind. But this was not because they wanted to be considered brave. According to Jimly, independency was not a matter of being brave. On contrary, said Jimly, “Don’t be afraid either” when doing their duties.

 

In Bangalore Principles 2002, independency was the first value to be kept tight by judges. The independency value was applied in various forms (see tabel below). According to Jimly, in carrying out the duty a law enforcer had to hold on to the rule of law, rule of ethic, and the knowledge doctrine.

 

Independency Values in Bangalore Principles

 

Value 1:

INDEPENDENCE

 

Principle

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

 

Application:

1.1

A judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the judge s  assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the  law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

 

1.2

A judge shall be independent in relation to society in general and in relation to the particular parties to a dispute which the judge has to adjudicate.

 

1.3

A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom.

 

1.4

In performing judicial duties, a judge shall be independent of judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.

 

1.5

A judge shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in  order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the  judiciary.

 

1.6

A judge shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

 

 

In relation to the effort of building a clean judiciary, Jimly invited all the judges and attorneys to make use of the advanced information technology. Improvement in the service of judiciary institutions could be much easier done by using information technology. Because attorneys and judges could follow the development of law science.

(Mys/Ali)

 

Source: http://www.hukumonline.com/detail.asp?id=19583&cl=Berita

Photo: doc. Constitutional Court PR

Translated by Yogi Djatnika (MKRI)

---