Building Judge Control System to Reduce Trial withouth Truth
This research project is about “Examination of Judge Decision Making Process” in the District Court (Pengadilan Negeri/PN) and the High Court (Pengadilan Tinggi/PT) of Surabaya and other surrounding cities at East Java Province, has been done by Center For Human Rights Study of Law Faculty of Muhammadiyah University and supported by The National Judicial Commission of Indonesia in two periods that are from April 2007 to October 2007 and March 2008 to June 2008. In this project, the writer is a coordinator of the research project. As research objective some cases chosen are special cases that spend a lot of attention from society such as Corruption, Narcotic and Psychotropic, Citizen Law Suit and Intelectual Property Rights (IPR) cases within the Year of 2004-2007. This research will be focused on analyze of empiric facts, legal factor or legal construction, and legal finding of the case made by judge and using a legal doctrinal method in order to see the fulfillment of four aspects that are fairness, the rule of law, utilities and progressives of the judge decision.
The example of Judge Decisions on Corruption cases are Judge Decision Number: 250/Pid/2005/PT. Surabaya, Number: 221/Pid.B/2005/PN. Lumajang in Lumajang Sub District. Number: 915/Pid.B/2007/PN.Kab., Pasuruan in Pasuruan Sub District. As the result, firstly, we find that the judges still ignore their duties mentioned on The Law Number 4 Year 2004 about The Power of Judiciary specially Article 32. The second, even most of legal construction on corruption case made by judge are very clear, complete and specific; however the criminal responsibilities of the actors were very low. So the judge decisions on corruption cases are controversial and far from fairness, legal certainty, utilities and progressives aspects. Therefore in Indonesia, until today corruption is still on the top rank. The example of Judge Decision on Psychotropic and Narcotic cases are The Judge Decision Number: 231/Pid/2006/PT.Surabaya, Number:309/Pid/2004/PT.Surabaya, Number: 244/Pid/2004/PT. Surabaya, Number: 1819/Pid.B/2006/PN.Surabaya, Number: 2904/Pid.B/2006/PN.Surabaya. We find that since almost all of actors were not defend by Lawyer, the judges did not implement the Criminal Code of Conduct accurately. For instant, the judges were ignore the principle of due process of law because they did not fulfill the right of people to get a legal defender. The Judges seem have no integrity, unprofessional, and bad Law educated. The judges were also did not implement the minimum and maximum criminal responsibility ruled by Tha Law of Psychotropic and Narcotic.
In this way, the judges were not only failed to implement the law and procedure but also they failed to guarantee the fairness, certainty, utility and progressiveness of law enforcement process. They tend to made “trial without truth”. The example of Citizen Law Suit cases are the Judge Decision Number: 32/G.TUN/2005/TUN.SBY in Surabaya High Court, Number: 52/B/TUN/2005/PT.TUN.SBY in Surabaya District Court, Number: 57/G.TUN/2005/TUN.SBY in Surabaya District Court, Number: 127/G.TUN/2007/PTUN. Surabaya in Surabaya District Court. Based on the Rule Number 5 Year 1986, the government guarantee that citizens as a victims caused by abuse of power of government decisions, could defend their right in the court . However, in those cases, the judges when made legal constructions only focused on legal procedure than the right of economical, social, cultural right of citizens. As the result, citizens never wind on this cases. Finally, I would like to conclude that Since the National Judicial Commission of Indonesia do not have a power for judiciary control, the law enforcement done by Judges still far from the aspect of legal fairness, legal certainty, legal utility, and legal progressions. Therefore, since autonomy system give opportunity for each district to manage their need and since every person have the right to build organization and participation, every one has the right to access legal information as well as control judicial product.
Copy right @cs.pratiwi prasojo