[Kabar-indonesia] Tempo: Differences of Opinion Over Corruption

[Joyo at aol.com]

Note: the news service is still in restart-up mode, ironing
out a few minor kinks. We'll be fully operational next week.

Tempo Magazine 
No. 09/VII/Oct 31 - Nov 06, 2006

Law

Differences of Opinion Over Corruption

Parliament demands that the government annul the corruption
probe into DPRD members.

DHARMONO Konstituanto Lawi got a shock on Tuesday, October
17, when a text message to his cell phone told him he would
be shown on a private television station as a fugitive
corruptor wanted by the Attorney General’s Office. “I’m
resigned to fate. It’s part of my life story,” he said.

The weekly television display of two corruptors is the
Prosecutor’s Office’s latest shock move, starting October
17. Dharmono, former Banten Regional House of
Representatives (DPRD) Speaker, did not think he would be
treated on a par with the 13 corruptors who stole trillions
of rupiah of state money in the Bank Indonesia Liquidity
Assistance (BLBI) funds scam. “I’m charged with corruption
due to a policy which is open to numerous interpretations. I
didn’t take even a single rupiah,” said the DPRD’s Trade
Commission member, who will become the 14th corruptor to be
shown on television.

Dharmono, 50, refused to be prosecuted last February when
the Banten High Prosecutor’s Office tried to haul him off to
jail upon receipt of the copy of the Supreme Court’s
appellate ruling in the Rp10.5 billion case concerning
housing for DPRD members. He received a jail sentence of
four and a half years for approving the request for funds
for 71 DPRD members made to the Banten Governor in 2003. But
Dharmono fled and now lives from one friends’ house to
another. Occasionally he would appear at the Indonesian
House of Representatives (DPR) building in Senayan, Jakarta.

This former executive of a leading automotive company did
not want to follow the fate of his two colleagues, Muslim
Jamaludin, 71, who was sentenced to four and a half years in
jail; and Mufrosi Muchsin, 56, who received a four-year jail
term. These two deputies to the Banten DPRD Speaker
willingly let themselves be prosecuted, despite the fact
that Muslim Jamaludin was seriously ill. This Golkar Party
member stayed a while in the Serang prison and later died in
his cell early in June 2006.

Dharmono chose to become a fugitive while preparing a
request for a review of his case (PK) with the Serang court.
His requested PK is now under deliberation. This man from
Pekalongan, Central Java, was relieved when the October 10
DPR plenary session accepted the recommendation of the
Commission for Law and Governance requesting President
Yudhoyono to reprimand Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh
for being discriminatory in handling corruption involving
DPRD members.
Dharmono is one of around 1,000 former DPRD members who were
incriminated by the Government Regulation (PP) No. 110/2000
on DPRD Finances. This regulation governs DPRD financial
rights based on percentage of original revenues of the
region concerned. The problem is, many DPRDs draw up budgets
in excess of the percentage, thus presumably enriching
themselves. The prosecutor’s action against them was
inconsistent, since not everybody involved in the wrongful
act was subjected to prosecution.

This became a bone of contention in the DPR. They set up a
combined work committee late in March with members from the
Law and Governance Commission. The committee was formed
following much protest from political parties against
investigation by prosecutors that was viewed as imposing its
interpretation of the regulation in question.

“The upholding of the law must not violate the principles of
the law,” remarked Muladi, head of Golkar’s Law, Human
Rights and Regional Autonomy section, late in May. The most
“victims” come from Golkar; in second place is the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). According
to Muladi, the already rescinded rules cannot be used as a
basis for grounds for prosecution. “They are subjected to
corruption charges because of different interpretations of
the law. We’re going to defend them,” declared Sutrisno
Bachir, National Mandate Party (PAN) Chairman, last August.

The Prosecutor’s Office was viewed as having made a blunder,
since PP 110 was annulled by the Supreme Court late in
December 2002 for being contrary to Law No. 22/1999 on
Regional Government that has turned over regional financial
powers to governors and local DPRDs. The probe into the
manipulation of funds started in 2004. “As no substitute has
yet been made, we are forced to use the regulation as
grounds for prosecution,” Attorney General Abdul Rahman
Saleh told the DPR last March.

In addition to political parties, protests also came from
the Association of Regency and Mayoralty DPRDs. When lodging
a complaint in last March, a number of DPRD members spoke
up. Despite the annulment by the Supreme Court, the
prosecutors in the field continued to insist on prosecuting
the DPRD members. “Only the DPRD members who are liable to
the action, when in fact it’s the regional government head
(governor) who is authorized to determine the budget,” said
Hasbullah, a Depok DPRD member, in a hearing with the DPR
Work Committee last March. Members of the Indonesian
Military/Police faction were spared, “even though they also
received money,” complained Hasbullah.

The prosecutors, according to Hasbullah, used the canceled
rule in their own interests. Worse, the already helpless
DPRD members were virtually made a milking cow. “They treat
us as a money-making machine,” said Hasbullah. According to
the findings of the DPR Work Committee, similar complaints
also come from other regions, such as, for example, Batam in
Riau province and Malang, East Java.

The Prosecutor’s Office has its own story to tell. Junior
Attorney General for Special Crimes Hendarman Supandji said
his office had issued three circulars following the Supreme
Courts’ cancellation (of the PP). The attorney general
himself issued a circular in 2003. Strangely enough, the
circulars from both officials have not been adequately
complied with.

Last March, the Prosecutor’s Office in fact set up a PP 110
Study Team that looked into all cases of corruption of DPRD
budgets by means of a new basis—the Corruption Law. “Is
there an act violating public sense of justice or going
against the law to enrich oneself and hurt the state’s
money,” said Hendarman then. The results of the team’s work
has been submitted to the attorney general, but has never
been published to date.

According to Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh, the
Prosecutor’s Office only discontinued the prosecution
against “group corruption” by DPRD members after March 27,
2003 when the Prosecutor’s Office officially received the
copy of the Supreme Court’s decision. “Prior to it, PP 110
should be viewed as still being in force,” said this former
justice, in parliament last October. The prosecutors who
still adhered to the old rules in the prosecution against
corruption in parliament following the aforesaid date will
face sanctions. Apparently this is the middle way which the
Prosecutor’s Office has taken.

The DPR has even taken further action by setting up a
supervisory team. According to an agreement between the DPR
Work Committee and the Prosecutor’s Office, Police and the
Supreme Court, litigation against corruption cases will be
“revised.” According to Gayus Lumbuun, one of the Work
Committee members, revision will be made in line with the
judiciary system in force. “If there’s indeed an element of
corruption, just go ahead,” said the senior lawyer. The
Prosecutor’s Office is also asked to defer prosecution of
DPRD members involved in corruption until there is a
permanent decision.

This DPR action draws criticisms. According to Saldi Isra,
an expert in constitutional law from Andalas University,
Padang, parliament’s recommendation is unacceptable.
“Corruption cases must be pursued to completion. What do you
think you’re going to do to corruption?” he said. “If the
government accepts the DPR recommendation, the agenda for
corruption eradication should be questioned.”

The government’s response to the DPR stance has not been
made yet. However, to Dharmono, it is already clear: even
though he is awaiting the review of his case, he will be
shown on television in November.

Arif A. Kuswandono, Rini Kustiani

-----------------

In THE PIPELine

There are 102 budgetary corruption cases involving 1,062
DPRD members in the 1999-2004 period. They are 736 DPRD
members of the regency and municipal levels, and 326
provincial-level DPRD members. This number is increasing,
since there are around 1,100 more people awaiting the
governors’ and the President’s permission for investigation.
The state suffers a total loss of Rp772 billion.

Modus operandi of corruption:

    * Manipulation of budgets     * Markup of budgets     *
Budgetary duplication     * Fictitious budgets     *
Projects without tenders

Source: Indonesia Corruption Watch and DPR Combined Work
Committee

Waiver

    * If the prosecutor still handles the case, he will
improve the dossier

    * If the case has been decided by the district court or
the high court, follow-up legal efforts will be made to
submit the case to the high court or the Supreme Court for
reconsideration

    * If the Supreme Court has decided the case, it is
liable to a review.

Source: DPR Combined Work Committee

------------------------------------------
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------