Simon Butt

Anti-corruption reform in indonesia: an obituary?

Indonesias Anti-Corruption Court had until recently convicted all the defendants brought before it by the Corruption Eradication Commission. Many of these were well-known and politically powerful figures. Yet both the Court and the Commission are under threat. Between February and October 2011, the Anti-Corruption Courts issued more than 20 acquittals, and on 11 October 2011, for the first time, a defendant prosecuted by the KPK itself was acquitted. This article traces the history of the Court and the Commission and explains why their fall may be imminent. Both institutions have been the targets of efforts to discredit and hobble them, apparently orchestrated by people the Commission has investigated. If the current trend continues, the Anti-Corruption Court and the Corruption Eradication Commission may soon join the growing list of Indonesias failed anti-corruption initiatives.

‘Unlawfulness’ and corruption under Indonesian law

Abstract Indonesias Anti-Corruption Commission and Anti-Corruption Court have a conviction rate of 100% in the 100 or so cases processed thus far. Some of those convicted for corruption have successfully challenged the constitutionality of Indonesias anti-corruption framework in the Constitutional Court. This article discusses the impact of one Constitutional Court decision, which removed some flexibility from the definition of corruption under the Corruption Eradication Law. That flexibility had allowed defendants to be convicted for corruption if they had caused loss to the state and enriched another party and, in so doing, had breached ‘community standards’. The Constitutional Court decided that ‘community standards’ was too vague and uncertain a notion to ground a conviction for corruption. This article shows that the Supreme Court has, deliberately and explicitly, circumvented the Constitutional Courts decision. That may have strengthened Indonesias anti-corruption drive, but it has done so at the expense of the rule of law.

ECONOMIC REFORM WHEN THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS: INDONESIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND ARTICLE 33

Abstract Article 33 of Indonesias Constitution requires the state to ‘control’ important branches of production and natural resources. The meaning of ‘control’ has been a matter of significant debate since Indonesias independence: does it require the state to manage directly, or is regulation enough? The government has recently sought to break down government monopolies and attract private investment in key sectors. To this end it has enacted a raft of new statutes, but they have been challenged in Indonesias new Constitutional Court. The Court has opted for the ‘direct manage ment’ interpretation of article 33, striking down statutes that implicitly interpret it as requiring government regulation only. This paper discusses these decisions and, more broadly, problems arising from judicial intervention in economic policy formation. It also considers how the government has sought to circumvent the decisions, and the possible consequences of state non-compliance for the Courts future.

Disaster Management Law in Indonesia: From Response to Preparedness?

Indonesia is one of the world’s most disaster-prone countries. However, it has not traditionally allocated sufficient resources to disaster prevention and mitigation activities, focusing instead on disaster response. Much progress has been made, inspired largely by the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami and several subsequent earthquakes elsewhere in Indonesia. In 2007, a new Disaster Management Law was enacted. It shifted the paradigm in disaster management towards prevention and mitigation, and required the establishment of a national Disaster Management Authority and Regional Disaster Management Authorities. The Law is a significant advance, but many problems remain, including the overlapping jurisdictions of the central and regional governments as well as difficulties in coordinating disaster management activities. These must be overcome to prevent avoidable loss of life and property resulting from natural and human-made disasters.

Judicial Review and the Supreme Court in Indonesia: A New Space for Law?

Political scientists and legal scholars have long argued that law “in practice” is primarily dictated by non-legal factors in Indonesia. While this remains largely true in post-Suharto Indonesia, it no longer appears to describe accurately the operation of the legal system in all cases. Law is becoming more relevant in new types of cases in which the state fights itself, such as in disputes between central and regional government over jurisdiction. However, the increasing space for and resort to law has highlighted major shortcomings of the rules for delineating and enforcing the powers and responsibilities of state institutions.

Asia-Pacific: Judicial Responses to the Death Penalty in Indonesia

In two recent cases, judges of the Indonesian Supreme Court have commuted death penalties for drug offences to terms of imprisonment, holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it breaches the right to life. This article argues, however, that these decisions are exceptional and probably not indicative of a general judicial movement away from imposing the death penalty in Indonesia, particularly for drug offences.

Asia-Pacific ‘Illegitimate’ Children and Inheritance in Indonesia

In February 2012 the Indonesian Constitutional Court invalidated Article 49(1) of Indonesia’s 1974 Marriage Law — an anachronistic provision under which countless women and children had suffered. The provision stipulated that a child born ’outside of a valid marriage’ had a civil legal relationship only with its mother and mother’s family. This meant that the child could only seek support and inheritance from its mother, and only its mother’s name would be listed on its birth certificate. It could not force its biological father to pay maintenance and was not entitled to inherit from him. If the father left or died, the mother and any children often faced significant social stigma and were left to fend for themselves. This was a significant problem in Indonesia, a developing country, where poverty or near-poverty affects many of its 240 million people. This article examines the Constitutional Court’s decision and considers its likely effect.