Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Silang Pendapat Perlindungan Saksi

DPR mulai membahas Undang-Undang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban. Sejumlah pasal diperkirakan akan alot pembahasannya.
MULAI Senin pekan ini para aktivis yang tergabung dalam Koalisi Perlindungan Saksi akan mengarahkan mata dan telinganya ke DPR. Parlemen akan mulai membahas Rancangan Undang-Undang Perlindungan Saksi. Jika berhasil, inilah undang-undang yang akan menjadi payung hukum bagi para saksi yang ikut membongkar kejahatan. ”Pembahasannya biasanya secara tertutup, tapi kami akan terus memantaunya,” kata juru bicara Koalisi, Supriyadi.
Koalisi Perlindungan Saksi, yang antara lain terdiri dari LBH Jakarta, Elsam, Komnas Perempuan, Walhi, memang harus memantau pembahasan ini agar isinya ”tak jauh panggang dari api”. Proses RUU ini sendiri terbilang lelet. Meski sebagai usul inisiatif—diajukan oleh 40 anggota Dewan pada 19 Mei 2002—dan menjadi prioritas tahun 2005, kepastian pembahasan RUU tersebut baru muncul pekan lalu dengan dibentuknya panitia kerja di DPR.
Menurut Agus Purnomo, salah satu pengusul, RUU itu diajukan, antara lain, karena selama ini ada sejumlah orang yang memberi kesaksian tapi ujung-ujungnya menjadi tersangka. Contohnya, Endin Wahyudin saat mengadukan adanya penyuapan terhadap hakim agung pada 2001. Endin, ketika itu, justru dituduh melakukan pencemaran nama baik dan kemudian divonis hukuman kurungan tiga bulan penjara. ”Selain itu, undang-undang ini juga untuk mengantisipasi semakin banyaknya kejahatan dengan jaringan kuat, seperti kejahatan narkoba dan terorisme,” ujar Agus.
Kendati Kitab Hukum Acara Pidana tak menyediakan mekanisme seperti ini, bukan berarti selama ini tak ada ”tameng” bagi seorang saksi. Dalam kasus korupsi, perlindungan itu diatur dalam Pasal 15 UU No. 30/2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Untuk pelanggaran hak asasi manusia, ada dalam Peraturan Pemerintah No. 2/2002 tentang Tata Cara Perlindungan terhadap Korban dan Saksi dalam Pelanggaran HAM Berat. Adapun untuk korban kasus kekerasan seksual, ada dalam UU No. 23/2004 tentang Penghapusan Kekerasan dalam Rumah Tangga.
Namun, perlindungan yang diatur oleh undang-undang itu dirasa belum cukup. Koordinator Divisi Perubahan Kebijakan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Apik, Indri Oktaviani, menunjuk contoh Undang-Undang Penghapusan Kekerasan dalam Rumah Tangga. Pengertian saksi dalam undang-undang itu, ujarnya, terbatas pada korban. ”Padahal, dalam kasus kekerasan dalam rumah tangga, saksi bisa juga dari bukan korban tapi mereka juga mendapat ancaman,” katanya.
Perlindungan saksi dalam Undang-Undang Antikorupsi juga dianggap kurang memuaskan. Memang ada, tapi belum dijelaskan secara detail. ”Itu perlu ditegaskan dan diuraikan lagi, perlindungan macam apa yang diberikan,” kata penasihat Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK), Abdullah Hehamahua. KPK memang berharap, jika undang-undang itu terbentuk, kasus korupsi, termasuk korupsi di lembaga peradilan, akan lebih gampang dibuka.
Draf RUU Perlindungan Saksi, yang kini di tangan anggota Dewan, sebenarnya masih jauh dari sempurna. Menurut Supriyadi, pihaknya mencatat ada lima isu penting dalam RUU itu yang harus dicermati, yaitu tentang pengertian saksi yang terbatas hanya pada korban, hak saksi, bentuk lembaga perlindungan saksi, tata cara perlindungan, dan tak adanya peran serta masyarakat.
Salah satu yang diperkirakan akan alot dibahas adalah Lembaga Perlindungan Saksi. Koalisi menghendaki lembaga itu berdiri independen seperti US Marshall di Amerika Serikat. Koalisi khawatir, jika lembaga ini diserahkan ke polisi, akan terhambat oleh rantai birokrasi yang panjang. Direktur Jenderal Peraturan dan Perundang-undangan Departemen Hukum dan HAM, Oka Mahendra, mengakui soal lembaga perlindungan saksi akan menjadi perdebatan panas. ”Apakah tidak lebih baik kalau itu dilakukan oleh lembaga yang sudah ada dengan memperjelas tugas dan pengawasannya?” katanya
Hal lain yang dinilai berpotensi menjadi perdebatan adalah jenis perlindungan dan kompensasi, termasuk kompensasi bagi saksi untuk tidak digugat secara pidana, perdata, dan tata usaha negara. Di mata Khairiansyah, mantan pegawai Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan, salah satu perlindungan yang mestinya dipertimbangkan adalah, saksi yang membuka kasus korupsi dibebaskan dari tuduhan kasus lain.
Khairiansyah mengibaratkan orang yang melaporkan kasus korupsi itu seperti orang membeli polis asuransi. Orang itu memberi uang premi dalam bentuk kasus, KPK memberi jaminan. ”Di situlah terjadi tawar-menawar. Jangan diadukan dengan yang lain-lain, dong,” katanya.
Khairiansyah pernah mendapat perlindungan dari KPK karena membantu membongkar kasus korupsi di Komisi Pemilihan Umum. Namun, belakangan, ia menjadi tersangka dalam kasus Dana Abadi Umat Departemen Agama. ”Ya, karena aturannya belum lengkap,” ujarnya.
Menurut Azis Syamsuddin, salah satu anggota panitia kerja RUU tersebut, pembebasan tuntutan seperti itu bukan tidak mungkin. ”Tapi, harus dilihat motifnya. Kalau dia menerima uang korupsi untuk menjebak, itu memang bagian dari perlindungan saksi. Tapi, kalau dia melapor karena menyesal, dan akhirnya kasusnya diperiksa, ada unsur pemaaf,” katanya. ”Nanti bisa mengurangi hukuman saksi itu.”
Namun, soal ini, Agus Purnomo punya pandangan berbeda. Menurut Agus, bisa saja saksi pelapor dibebaskan dari tuntutan jika akibat dari kesaksiannya negara memperoleh keuntungan besar, seperti kembalinya aset-aset negara. ”Itu kompensasi maksimal yang bisa diberikan. Minimal, ya, hukumannya dikurangi,” katanya.
Adapun Direktur Imparsial Rachlan Nasidik menilai, pembebasan tuntutan itu hanya bisa untuk kasus pelanggaran hak asasi manusia. Misalnya seseorang yang terlibat kasus pelanggaran hak asasi karena pembiaran. ”Tapi untuk yang by commission tidak bisa. Apalagi kalau dia terlibat aktif,” katanya.
Tapi, Hakim Agung Artidjo Alkostar tak setuju jika ada seseorang bebas dari tuntutan atas kesalahan yang dilakukannya hanya karena telah memberi kesaksian. ”Kalau itu yang dilakukan, keadilan rakyat yang tersinggung. Jelas-jelas melakukan perbuatan pidana, kok tidak dituntut?” katanya
Jika tak ada aral melintang, RUU yang terdiri atas tujuh bab dan 32 pasal ini akan rampung sebelum masa sidang DPR, 24 Maret 2006. Hasil kerja panitia ini bakal dibahas dalam Komisi Hukum sebelum kemudian dibawa ke Badan Musyawarah dan ke sidang paripurna. Azis Syamsuddin optimistis RUU tersebut akan rampung dalam waktu sependek itu. ”Dalam seminggu, kami akan membahasnya tiga kali,” katanya.
Abdul Manan
Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 49/XXXIV/30 Januari - 05 Februari 2006

Pasal yang Tak Rinci
Sejumlah kritik dilontarkan Koalisi Perlindungan Saksi terhadap sejumlah pasal dalam RUUPerlindungan Saksi. Inilah di antaranya.
Saksi:
Pasal 1: Saksi adalah orang yang memberikan keterangan guna kepentingan penyelidikan, penyidikan,penuntutan, dan peradilan tentang suatu perkara yang ia dengar sendiri, ia lihat sendiri, dan/atauia alami sendiri.# Definisi ini tidak mengakui saksi pelapor. Padahal, dalam kasus pidana, juga ada orang yang bisamengungkap kasus karena memiliki dokumen, meski tak melihat dan mengalami sendiri. Akibatnya,pelapor pun tak ada dalam kategori saksi yang berhak mendapat perlindungan.

Hak Saksi:
Pasal 5: Saksi dan korban berhak memperoleh perlindungan atas keamanan pribadi, ancaman, ikutmenentukan bentuk perlindungan, dan memberikan keterangan tanpa tekanan dan lain-lain.# Hak saksi harus diatur lebih terperinci. Dibedakan antara hak yang harus diberikan kepada saksisecara umum tanpa memandang kondisi atau situasi, dan hak yang diberikan dalam kondisi khusus. Diberbagai negara, hanya saksi tertentu yang masuk perlindungan saksi. Termasuk jenisnya, baik berupapenggantian identitas, relokasi, maupun kompensasi.
Lembaga Perlindungan Saksi:
Pasal 11: Lembaga Perlindungan Saksi (LPS) merupakan lembaga mandiri yang dibentuksekurang-kurangnya di setiap ibu kota provinsi dan kabupaten yang dianggap perlu oleh LPS.# Sebaiknya lembaga yang mandiri seperti US Marshall di Amerika Serikat, sehingga lembaga ini punyatenaga pengamanan sendiri, dan polisi membantu di level tertentu.
Tata Cara Perlindungan:Pasal 18-24: Mengatur soal bagaimana saksi atau korban bisa memperoleh perlindungan, perjanjian, danpenghentian perlindungan serta ketentuan bagi saksi dan korban untuk mengajukan bantuan.# Pasal yang mengatur soal tata cara perlindungan kurang rinci dan lengkap.

Monday, January 30, 2006

The Rigors of Re-Selection

The Judicial Commission has drafted regulations to replace the laws governing the appointment of Supreme Court justices in an attempt to have the judiciary reshuffled.

JUDICIAL Commission member Irawady Joenoes has been putting in long hours at the office over the past two weeks. Joined by other colleagues from the Judicial Commission, Joenoes has been pushing to complete the draft government regulations to replace the laws governing the selection of Supreme Court justices. "We hope to publicize the draft regulations this February," Joenoes told Tempo, last Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Joenoes received a visit from a prominent former Supreme Court justice, now in his 70's. The retired judge expressed disappointment about the moral conduct of certain Supreme Court justices, giving examples of their wrongful behavior. "We are even receiving complaints from within the Supreme Court itself," Joenoes told Tempo.

Complaints about the increasing corruption of the judiciary has pushed the Judicial Commission to call for a re-selection of justices. Last month, Judicial Commission Chairman Busyro Muqoddas met with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to discuss the possibility of drafting government regulations to replace the laws governing the selection of justices. According to Muqoddas, the president supported the Judicial Commission's plan. "The judiciary has become increasingly degenerate and the worst damage is at the Supreme Court," said Mudoddas. "It is for this reason that the cleansing process must begin with the head--the Supreme Court," he explained.

In formulating the draft regulations, the Judicial Commission sought input from prominent legal practitioners and legal academics. Together with these legal experts, commission members have spent weeks formulating the draft regulations. "The provisions in this regulation will alter aspects of the existing laws, both directly and indirectly," said Judicial Commission regulation formulating team chief, Chatamarrasjid.

The primary purpose of the regulations relates to the re-selection of Supreme Court justices. The regulations call for the establishment of a special selection team. Totaling 15-20 members, this team will include seven Judicial Commission members. The remaining members will be made up of "outsiders". The Judicial Commission has already targeted certain "outsiders" for the team, such as former Supreme Court justices Bismar Siregar and Adi Andoyo and Indonesian law expert from the University of Washington, Daniel S. Lev.

When Tempo contacted Siregar and Lev, both expressed support for the Judicial Commission's efforts to clean up the Supreme Court. However, they also said that they were not interested in becoming members of the judicial selection team. "I hope they don't contact me," said Siregar. Adi Andoyo was more open to the idea of becoming a judicial selection member. "I am extremely annoyed that so many Supreme Court justices have become so unprofessional in their conduct," said the former Supreme Court justice in charge of general crimes.

The actual selection process involves several stages. The first stage involves publishing the names of the 49 justices currently serving at the Supreme Court. This stage is aimed at attracting input from the public, towards mapping the track record and moral conduct of current justices. "In addition to publishing the names of the justices, we plan to summon those people who have lodged complaints against any of them," explained Joenoes.

The second stage involves summoning the justices for an interview. In this stage, the Judicial Commission will interview and check all public input regarding the moral and professional conduct of the justices. From here, the commission will categorize the justices into two groups--those whom they deem deserving to remain Supreme Court justices, and those whom they believe should be dismissed.

In addition to re-shuffling the judiciary, the commission also plans to compile a list of prospective candidate justices. These candidates will fill the 11 empty seats at the Supreme Court and replace any justices dismissed during the re-selection process. Once the selection process is completed, the names of the justices whom the commission believes should be dismissed will be submitted to the House of Representatives, together with the names of prospective candidate justices.

Judicial Commission head Busyro Muqoddas expressed optimism about the plan, predicting that there will be no major obstructions to enacting the replacement government regulations. In fact, Muqoddas met with key DPR leaders last week to discuss the regulations. DPR Speaker Agung Laksono expressed support for the Judicial Commission's efforts to clean up the judiciary. "We support the commission's efforts in attempting to bring about a clean judiciary. But, they have to act in accordance within the existing legal framework," said Laksono.

The nature of this "legal framework" has become the focus of Supreme Court judges and DPR members. And voices of opposition have begun to surface against the replacement regulations from within both the Supreme Court and the DPR.

DPR Law Commission Chairman representing the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle at the DPR, Trimedya Panjaitan, condemned Busyro Muqoddas for meeting with key DPR members to gain political support for the regulations. "He should have approached the Law Commission to gain political support for the idea," said Panjaitan.

Panjaitan also denounced the Judicial Commission's plans to enact replacement regulations, claiming that such drastic measures should only be resorted to in emergency situations. "We are not currently facing an emergency situation," he declared. Panjaitan also expressed concern that the regulations would spark conflict between the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court. According to Panjaitan, the re-selection process could bring about major resistance and resentment among Supreme Court justices. "And what will happen to the law, if they decide to go on strike?" he questioned.

Separately, former Justice Minister and current National Defense Board Governor, Muladi, also denounced the Judicial Commission's attempts to pass replacement regulations towards cleaning up the judiciary. "Such government regulations should only be enacted under emergency conditions, and the president should not interfere in matters involving the judiciary," said Muladi. Muladi suggested that a more effective measure would be to revise the Laws on Judicial Powers.

Supreme Court justices themselves are divided in their response to the Judicial Commission's plans. "If there is a presidential mandate, I do not object to undergoing the re-selection process," said Supreme Court justice and Junior Chairman of the Religious Court, Andi Syamsu Alam.

Expressing strong opposition to the plan, Justice German Hoediarto said that he would immediately resign from his post if asked to undergo another re-selection process. "That is my principle," said the Junior Chairman of the Military Court.

Hoediarto claims that the re-selection process is insulting to judges, especially those who have served long-term at the Supreme Court. "This treatment is insulting. There are other ways to dismiss rogue judges, for example by waiting for them to retire," said Hoediarto, who sat on the judicial panel which convicted Tommy Suharto of the murder of Supreme Court Justice Syafiuddin Kartasasmita.

Separately, Deputy Chairman of the Indonesian Judges Association (Ikahi), Justice Imran Anwari, also condemned the commission's judicial re-selection plans. "The Judicial Commission is out of line. There is no legal basis for this idea," said Anwari, adding that almost all of the justices serving at the Supreme Court have already undergone a fit-and-proper test. "Any judges found to be involved in a judicial mafia should be dealt with. But, we can't just burn down the whole house to catch a small mouse," warned Anwari.

Nevertheless, Irawady Joenoes has rejected such objections from Supreme Court justices, maintaining that they have no authority to interfere in the Judicial Commission's exercise of its duties. "If they are not guilty, they should have no fear of the re-selection process," Joenoes concluded.

L.R. Baskoro, Maria Ulfah, Abdul Manan, Agriceli

TEMPO, JANUARY 30, 2006-021/P. 36 Heading Law

Monday, January 23, 2006

The Sting at Chamoe Chamoe

The Crimes of Corruption Eradication Team has arrested a judge for attempting to extort money from a key witness in the controversial Jamsostek social security case. Voice recordings and SMS will be used as evidence.

LAST Monday, officers from the Anti-Corruption Task Force Team (Timtas Timikor) arrested Judge Herman Allosintadi at his home in the Judiciary Housing Complex in Ragunan, Jakarta. Herman was getting ready to leave for his office when he opened the door to four officials. "We are from the Anti-Corruption Team, here to detain you for questioning," one of them said.

Herman was brought to the Police Headquarters in Blok M, South Jakarta. There, the District Court Judge was questioned for five hours by a team of investigators. The interrogation focused on his motives in ordering South Jakarta District Court clerk, Andry Djemmy Lumanauw to demand money from Jamsostek Risk Management Analysis Unit Chief, Wolter Sigalingging--a key witness in the highly controversial Jamsostek corruption case.

The Supreme Court approved Herman's arrest on the Friday, however the Team of officers were unable to track Herman at his house in Ragunan. "We first checked Jakarta and then checked his house in Surabaya, but he was at neither place," said Chief of Team, Hendarman Supandji. Herman had been staying with his brother in Bekasi for three days.

Herman is charged with attempted bribery and attempting to extort key witness Wolter Sigalingging. On December 21, Andry Djemmy Lumanauw approached Wolter, who would serve as a witness in the Jamsostek corruption case trial the next day.

Facing trial at the South Jakarta District Court were former Jamsostek president director, Ahmad Djunaidi and former Jamsostek investment director, Andi Rahman Alamsyah. Both Ahmad and Andi were facing charges of misappropriating funds from a debt claim from PT Bank Global, PT Dahana, PT Sapta Pranajaya, PT Surya Indo Pradana and PT Volgen, causing the state approximately Rp300 billion in losses.

Andry told Wolter that Judge Herman would probably declare him a suspect in the case. "It would be better if you met him before trial begins," Andry suggested. According to Andry the purpose of the meeting was to ensure Wolter that he would not be named a suspect. However, Wolter ignored Andry's threats.

The following day, Wolter took the stand to testify as one of the primary witnesses in the trial. During his testimony, Wolter denied being involved in analyzing the requests of troubled companies for loans. Chairing the judicial panel which tried the case, Judge Herman rebuked Wolter, threatening him that he "would also be declared a suspect and held in contempt for giving false testimony." The judge's threat confirmed Andry's prediction.

A fortnight later, Andry again approached Wolter. "Judge Herman is demanding that you pay Rp200 million," he warned Wolter, again threatening that he would certainly be declared a suspect if he refused to pay. "It was outrageous. They were trying to extort me," Wolter recounted to Tempo. Wolter claims that he neither accepted nor rejected the request at the time.

However, Wolter then decided to contact the police, reporting the incident to the Director of Corruption Crimes at the Police Headquarters, Brigadier General Indarto. Indarto immediately contacted Team Chief, Hendarman Supandji. Hendarman in turn organized an emergency meeting at the AGO headquarters and proceeded to order the arrest of Andry Lumanauw. Hendarman also requested that Andry be caught red-handed. "The operation must be carried out as naturally as possible," he told staff.

Wolter agreed to the plan and contacted Andry, claiming that he was willing to hand over the money demanded by Judge Herman. Andry suggested that they meet at the Chamoe-Chamoe Restaurant in Semanggi, South Jakarta. The two met at the restaurant at 9:20pm. Prior to this, Team for Eliminating Crimes of Corruption officers had already staked out the premises.

Andry was unaware that Wolter was recording the whole discussion on his mobile phone. As soon as Andry accepted the Rp10 million payment and put it in his pocket, officers from the Team swooped down on him and arrested him. They then persuaded Andry to call Judge Herman to inform him that Wolter had already handed over the money. Herman was also unaware that the phone call was being recorded. During the conversation, Herman unwittingly implicated himself in the operation.

Officers seized both the money and Andry's and Wolter's mobile phones as evidence. "They will be used as evidence in court. There was no bugging involved," Hendarman clarified.

Following Andry's arrest the next day, the Team visited the South Jakarta District Court to seize Judge Herman's mobile phone. Also on that day, Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh sent a letter to Supreme Court chief Justice Bagir Manan requesting permission to arrest Herman. As soon as the approval letter was issued, the Attorney General ordered the immediate arrest of Judge Herman. Police officers finally tracked him down last Monday, at his house.

Hendarman said that Judge Herman will be charged with corruption under the Law on Corruption Crimes, which carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. "Our evidence is complete. He committed extortion. We have also seized and secured the mobile phone recordings of both conversations as evidence," said Hendarman, adding that no other suspects have been declared yet. "In the meantime, we only have those two," he said.

When Tempo met with Judge Herman in his cell last week, he confessed to the charges. "This was all my own initiative," he admitted. Separately, the spokesperson for the South Jakarta District Court, Johanes Suhadi denied allegations that extortion and bribery were common practice at the South Jakarta District Court. Johanes also denied allegations that these practices were carried out to finance judicial operational costs. "There is no such thing. What are judicial operational costs? We are ordinary public servants, we don't take trips abroad," Johanes said. He also explained that the incident would have serious ramifications for the reputation of the South Jakarta District Court. "This is a heavy blow for all of us. Such practices should no longer be occurring," he said.

In the meantime, the South Jakarta District Court has already postponed all cases presided over by Judge Herman. South Jakarta District Court Chairman, Soedarto appointed new judges to preside over the Jamsostek case. Chaired by Judge Sri Mulyani, the new panel comprises Judges Sultoni and Ahmad Sobari. South Jakarta District Court clerk Andry Lumanauw is to be dismissed.

According to Judicial Commission member, Irawady Joenoes, Judge Herman's case shows that systematic crimes are still common in the judiciary. "These crimes are carried out quietly and inconspicuously. We can sense them but they are difficult to prove," he claims. Irawady said that the Judicial Commission also plans to investigate Herman, although the judge will ultimately be handed over to the Supreme Court Justices Board of Honor for further investigation. "We still have the authority to investigate further into this case," Irawady maintained.

L.R. Baskoro, Abdul Manan, Maria

TEMPO, JANUARY 23, 2006-020/P. 18 Heading Law

Janji yang Diulur-ulur

NURSJAHBANI Katjasungkana setengah berlari ke ruang Badan Musyawarah DPR, Kamis pekan lalu. Di sela-sela mengikuti dua rapat dari empat rapat panitia khusus yang diikutinya, anggota Komisi Hukum DPR ini ingin tahu nasib agenda kasus Trisakti, Semanggi I dan II, yang ia dengar akan dibahas hari itu.

Mengapa Lumbung Yang Dibakar

DUA pekan terakhir, Irawady Joenoes lebih kerap pulang larut malam dari kantornya ketimbang hari-hari biasa. Bersama sejumlah anggota Komisi Yudisial lainnya, Koordinator Bidang Pengawasan Keluhuran Martabat dan Perilaku Hakim Komisi Yudisial ini tengah ngebut menuntaskan draf peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang yang mengatur seleksi ulang hakim agung. ”Februari ini kami mengharap sudah bisa disosialisasi,” kata Irawady kepada Tempo di ruang kerjanya, Selasa pekan lalu.

Monday, January 16, 2006

A Fight to The Bitter End in Depok

IT is as if Badrul Kamal--the former mayor of Depok--has launched a total war, a fight to the bitter end. The moment the Supreme Court (MA) annulled the West Java High Court's decision and accepted the Depok Regional General Elections Commission (KPUD) judicial review, Badrul constituted a new movement. He did not wish to waste any time. Last Wednesday, through his attorney, he requested that the Constitutional Court conduct a formal examination and hear an appeal against the Supreme Court's decision. "If our suit is accepted, the Supreme Court's decision will be invalid," said Badrul's attorney Alberth M. Sagala.

Badrul Kamal: Golkar has instructed me to fight back

BADRUL Kamal is questioning the decision of the Supreme Court (MA) which annulled his win in the West Java High Court. "Even if the judge had erred, it should not have influenced the court's decision," he maintained. The following are excerpts of an interview with Badrul Kamal, by Tempo reporter Abdul Manan, last Friday.

Inconsistent Law Enforcers

A variety of problems have surfaced during the elections for regional heads. Interestingly, only one is in court: the Depok case.

AS of June 2005, there have been 166 direct elections of regional heads, either to elect mayors, regents or governors. None however have been as sensational as the election of the mayor of Depok, West Java. The rivalry between the Nurmahmudi Ismail-Yuyun Wirasaputra duet and Badrul Kamal-Syihabuddin Ahmad duet has even reached the level of the Supreme Court (MA), even though the Law on Regional Government states that the resolution of disputes over the election of regional heads are final at one judicial level: The high court for the election of mayors and regents and the Supreme Court for governors.

Of course disputes over the election of district head are not exclusively over the issue of the vote count. Based on the Independent Election Monitoring Committee's (KIPP) records, there are two types of issues that have been the source of disputes. Firstly, the issue of the stages of the elections. Secondly, the issue of determining the result. "Most have precisely been during the [elections] stages, not the determination [of the result]," says former KIPP chairperson Ray Rangkuti.

Many political parties have reported the Regional General Election Commissions (KPUD) to the State Administrative Court (PTUN) because they felt they were treated adversely during the nomination of candidates. KIPP has noted at least 20 such cases. "The majority of parties have won in the PTUN. Only in two cases did the KPUD win," says Ray. Unfortunately, the majority of these decisions are not implemented by the KPUD. One of the districts where the KPUD did acceded to a PTUN decision was Mentawai, West Sumatra. After loosing in the PTUN, the KPUD finally reopened registration for candidates for the regent.

The second kind of dispute is over the determination of candidates--as occurred for example in the Musi Rawas regency of South Sumatra. The H.M. Syarif Hidayat-Sumarmo duet--a pair of candidates for regent and deputy-regent that felt adversely treated--believe that in making its decision the panel of judges in the South Sumatra High Court were inconsistent or there was a contradiction between the legal considerations and the decision's injunction. Syarif has reported the panel of judges that heard the case to the Judicial Commission on August 31.

An identical case surfaced in the East Kotawaringin regency of Central Kalimantan. Victory by the Wahyudi Kaspul Anwar-Amrulah Hadi duet was blocked because the Thamrin Noor-Muhlan Sapri duet supported by the Golkar Party and the Didik Salmijardi-Gohard Nion duet supported by the Democrat Party challenged the election result as they considered it fraudulent.

The election of the district head in West Nusa Tenggara was embroiled up in a similar case. During the election of the mayor of Mataram, the Lalu Bakri-Ari Wiryawan Harun Al Rasyid duet sued the Mataram KPUD because they believed the election was not organized properly. In Taliwang, West Sumbawa Regency, the victory by the Zulkifli Muhadli-Mala Rahman duet was also prevented because of a legal challenge by their opponents. In Greater Sumbawa, Sumbawa Regency, a victory of the Jamaludin Malik-Abdul Jabir duet was challenged by the Wahid Salim-Syamsuddin Anwar duet after a dispute over the vote count.

According to Ray, there are quite a lot of disputes over the determination of the vote count. The majority however are unable to be brought before the courts. "The majority of disputes fail because there are considered not to have fulfilled the requirements to be contended [in court]," he says.

The upshot of all this says Ray, is that the loosing candidate ends up reporting the judge to the Judicial Commission. This is the trendy move because if they launch a suit against over the material basis for the KPUD's decision, 90 percent will loose. "All suits in elections, the executive, and election of district heads, against the KPUD's decision will loose, because it is very difficult to prove the disappearance of votes," he added.

Home Affairs Minister M. Ma'ruf admits that there are many problems in the direct election of regional heads. "Because it's something new. If there are problems here and there, I think it's still natural," he says. According to Ma'ruf, out of the 166 district elections that have taken place since June 2005, only 12 percent have been problematic.

In the eyes' of Ryaas Rasyid, there are two root problems in the election of regional heads--the Law on Regional Government and inconsistency in the legal institutions. Law No. 32/2004 according to Ryaas, is so far as adopting the principles that are in effect for presidential and legislative elections, which states that election disputes can only be resolved at one judicial level. "It's not open to other legal undertakings," he says.

With regard to the inconsistency of the legal institutions, he points to the Supreme Court accepting a judicial review of a case that according to law is final. Ryaas hopes that there will soon be an evaluation on the regional heads election. "If indeed the roots of the problem lie there, the laws [should be] revised. If it is a problem of consistency in the enforcement of the law, the Supreme Court must be reformed," he says.

Abdul Manan, Thoso Priharnowo, Sunudyantoro

TEMPO, JANUARY 16, 2006-019/P. 37 Heading Cover Story

Berakhir di Restoran Manado

Tim Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi menangkap hakim yang mencoba memeras saksi kasus Jamsostek. Rekaman suara dan SMS akan dijadikan barang bukti.

SECANGKIR kopi itu baru diminum Herman Allositandi separuhnya saat pintu rumahnya di Jalan Kancil, Kompleks Kehakiman, Ragunan, diketuk orang. Hari itu Senin dan Herman bersiap berangkat ke kantornya. Begitu hakim kelahiran Toraja, 51 tahun, itu membuka pintu, empat orang pria segera masuk. ”Kami dari Tim Pemberantasan Korupsi, mendapat tugas menahan dan memeriksa Bapak,” ujar salah satu di antaranya.

Pagi itu juga, Senin pekan lalu sekitar pukul 08.00, Herman diboyong ke Markas Besar Kepolisian di kawasan Blok M. Di sana, para penyelidik dari Tim Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Timtas Tipikor) menginterogasinya selama sekitar lima jam. Mereka memberondong Herman dengan pertanyaan seputar perintahnya kepada panitera pengganti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, Andry Djemmy Lumanauw, untuk meminta uang kepada Wolter Sigalingging, Kepala Analis Unit Manajemen Risiko PT Jamsostek.

Surat untuk menangkap Herman sebenarnya sudah keluar Jumat pekan sebelumnya. Tapi, saat aparat mendatangi rumahnya di Ragunan, Herman lenyap. ”Kita ubek-ubek Jakarta dan kami buru ke rumahnya di Surabaya, dia tidak ada,” kata Ketua Timtas Tipikor, Hendarman Supandji. Rupanya, selama tiga hari itu Herman mengungsi ke rumah kakaknya di bilangan Bekasi.

Herman ditangkap karena diduga melakukan pemerasan terhadap Wolter. Syahdan, pada Rabu 21 Desember silam, Andry menghubungi Wolter yang esok harinya akan menjadi saksi dalam perkara korupsi Jamsostek yang tengah disidangkan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan tersebut.

Untuk kasus Jamsostek ini Kejaksaan Agung sudah menetapkan mantan Direktur Utama Jamsostek Ahmad Djunaidi dan mantan Direktur Investasi Andi Rahman Alamsyah sebagai tersangka. Mereka dinilai melakukan penyelewengan dalam pemberian surat utang kepada PT Bank Global, PT Dahana, PT Sapta Pranajaya, PT Surya Indo Pradana, dan PT Volgren, yang membuat negara rugi sekitar Rp 300 miliar.

Nah, kepada Wolter, Andry menyebutkan hakim Herman mungkin bakal menjadikan dirinya sebagai tersangka. ”Sebaiknya Anda bertemu dia sebelum sidang,” ujar Andry. Menurut Andry, inti pertemuan itu adalah untuk mengatur dirinya agar tak menjadi tersangka. Tapi, Wolter menolak saran Andry.

Esok harinya, Wolter tampil sebagai saksi di persidangan. Di depan majelis hakim yang diketuai Herman dan dua hakim anggota Sri Mulyani dan M. Syarifuddin, Wolter menegaskan dirinya tidak ikut menganalisis permohonan kredit yang diajukan sejumlah perusahaan yang kreditnya macet itu. Keterangan itu rupanya membuat Herman berang. ”Anda bisa menjadi tersangka karena memberikan keterangan palsu,” kata Herman. Ancaman itu persis seperti yang sebelumnya diinformasikan Andry ke Wolter.

Dua pekan kemudian, seusai sidang lanjutan pemeriksaan saksi, Andry kembali menghampiri Wolter. ”Pak Herman meminta Rp 200 juta,” kata Andry. Andry menegaskan, jika Wolter tak memenuhi itu, ia pasti akan menjadi tersangka. ”Ini sudah keterlaluan, saya diperas,” kata Wolter kepada Tempo. Saat itu Wolter tidak menolak atau mengiyakan permintaan Andry.

Dari Pengadilan Jakarta Selatan itu Wolter lantas menghubungi seorang petugas polisi yang kemudian melaporkannya kepada Brigjen Indarto. Direktur Pidana Korupsi Mabes Polri yang juga Wakil Ketua Timtas Tipikor itu segera mengontak Hendarman. Rapat kilat diadakan di Gedung Bundar Kejaksaan, dan Hendarman memerintahkan anak buahnya menangkap Andry. Syarat tambahan Hendarman, harus tertangkap tangan. ”Dan semuanya harus dilakukan secara alamiah,” perintah Hendarman.

Skenario lantas disusun. Wolter mengontak Andry dan menyatakan akan menyetor uang yang diminta Herman. Andry lantas menunjuk Restoran Chamoe-Chamoe di bilangan Semanggi, Jakarta Selatan, sebagai tempat pertemuan mereka. Pukul 21.20, keduanya bertemu di rumah makan khas Manado tersebut. Ketika itu sekitar 12 aparat Timtas Tipikor sudah lebih dulu datang dan mengepung tempat pertemuan mereka. Ada yang menyamar sebagai pengamen.

Andry tak menyadari semua pembicaraannya terekam dalam telepon genggam Wolter. Saat Andry menerima uang dari Wolter sebesar Rp 10 juta dan memasukkannya ke saku celana, saat itu pula petugas Timtas Tipikor menghambur dan menangkap Andry. Beberapa saat setelah Andry ditangkap, petugas meminta Andry menelepon Herman dan mengabarkan ia telah mendapat uang dari Wolter. Di ujung telepon sana, Herman tidak sadar bahwa pembicaraannya itu direkam.

Uang dan telepon genggam milik Andry dan Wolter kini disita sebagai barang bukti. ”Semua ini akan menjadi barang bukti di pengadilan dan ini bukan penyadapan,” kata Hendarman. Hari itu juga panitera yang sebenarnya tengah mengambil cuti Natal itu ditahan di Mabes Polri.

Sehari setelah penangkapan Andry Djemmy, Timtas Tipikor mendatangi Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan. Di sini mereka menyita telepon genggam Herman. Jaksa Agung Abdul Rahman Saleh juga segera mengirim surat kepada Ketua Mahkamah Agung Bagir Manan untuk meminta izin menangkap Herman. Begitu surat izin itu dikantongi, perburuan terhadap Herman pun dilakukan hingga akhirnya tim menemukannya Senin pekan silam di rumahnya, saat ia menyeruput kopi paginya.

Herman, ujar Hendarman, akan dijerat dengan Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana yang ancaman hukumannya bisa 20 tahun penjara. ”Bukti-buktinya lengkap, dia melakukan pemerasan. Rekaman pembicaraan dan SMS dalam telepon genggam yang kami sita juga menunjukkan hal itu,” kata Hendarman. Menurut Hendarman, sampai kini belum ada orang lain yang akan dijadikan tersangka. ”Sementara, ya, cuma dua orang itu,” ujarnya.

Herman sendiri saat ditemui Tempo di tahanannya, pekan lalu, mengakui semua perbuatannya. ”Ini inisiatif saya sendiri,” ujarnya. Juru bicara Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, Johanes Suhadi, juga membantah rumor yang menyatakan permintaan uang kepada saksi atau terdakwa biasa terjadi di Pengadilan Jakarta Selatan dan tujuannya, antara lain, untuk biaya operasional hakim. ”Tidak ada itu. Operasional hakim apa? Kami ini kan pegawai negeri biasa, tidak pernah ada perjalanan dinas ke luar negeri,” kata Suhadi. Suhadi juga prihatin dengan kasus yang dialami Herman. ”Ini pukulan buat kami. Seharusnya, dalam situasi sekarang ini, kan tidak ada yang neko-neko (bertindak macam-macam),” katanya.

Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan kini sudah ”menarik” semua perkara yang ditangani Herman. Ketua PN Jakarta Selatan, Soedarto, juga merombak susunan majelis hakim Jamsostek. Majelis hakim kasus itu kini diketuai Sri Mulyani dengan anggota Sultoni dan Ahmad Sobari. Adapun Andry kini dalam proses pemecatan.

Bagi anggota Komisi Yudisial, Irawady Joenoes, kasus Herman menunjukkan kejahatan sistematis memang ada dalam dunia peradilan. ”Namun, kejahatan itu dijalankan secara tertutup dan rapi. Bisa dirasakan, sulit dibuktikan,” ujarnya. Menurut Irawady, Komisi Yudisial juga akan memeriksa Herman, meski kelak hakim itu akan diperiksa Dewan Kehormatan Hakim Mahkamah Agung. ”Kami tetap berwenang memeriksanya dan menelusuri kasus ini lebih dalam,” kata Irawady.
L.R. Baskoro, Abdul Manan, Maria
Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 47/XXXIV/16 - 22 Januari 2006
Nahas dari Chamoe-Chamoe
22 Desember 2005
Ketua majelis hakim kasus korupsi dana Jamsostek, Herman Allositandi, menghardik Kepala Analis Unit Manajemen Risiko (UMR) PT Jamsostek, Wolter Sigalingging, dalam sidang. Herman mengatakan, Wolter bisa menjadi tersangka karena memberikan keterangan palsu.
3 Januari 2006
Panitera pengganti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, Andry Djemmy Lumanauw, meminta uang Rp 200 juta kepada Wolter dengan iming-iming tidak akan dijadikan tersangka. Djemmy mengaku diperintah Herman. Djemmy dan Wolter lantas bertemu di Restoran Chamoe-Chamoe, Semanggi, Jakarta. Saat uang di tangan Wolter, Djemmy disergap sekitar 12 anggota Tim Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
5 Januari 2006
Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan menarik semua perkara yang ditangani Herman Allositandi untuk batas waktu yang belum ditentukan.
6 Januari 2006
Jaksa Agung Abdul Rahman Saleh mengeluarkan surat perintah penangkapan dan penahanan Herman. Pada hari yang sama, Mahkamah Agung mengeluarkan surat izin penangkapan kepada Tim Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
7-8 Januari 2006
Herman ”menghilang.” Tim Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi mencari Herman hingga ke rumahnya di Surabaya.
9 Januari 2006
Herman ditangkap di rumahnya di Ragunan sekitar pukul 08.00, sesaat setelah pulang dari rumah kakaknya di Bekasi. Herman diperiksa di Mabes Polri dan langsung ditahan. Sore harinya, polisi menggeledah rumah dinas Herman.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Karena Penegak Hukum Tak Konsisten

SEJAK Juni 2005, sudah ada 166 pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung, baik memilih wali kota, bupati, maupun gubernur. Namun, tak ada yang seheboh pemilihan Wali Kota Depok, Jawa Barat. Persaingan pasangan Nurmahmudi Ismail-Yuyun Wirasaputra dan Badrul Kamal-Syihabuddin Ahmad sampai melesat ke tingkat Mahkamah Agung, meski Undang-Undang Pemerintahan Daerah menyatakan sengketa pemilihan kepala daerah sudah final di satu tingkat peradilan saja: pengadilan tinggi untuk wali kota dan bupati, serta Mahkamah Agung untuk gubernur.

Badrul Kamal: Golkar Memerintahkan untuk Melawan

Badrul Kamal menggugat keputusan kasasi Mahkamah Agung yang menganulir kemenangannya di Pengadilan Tinggi Jawa Barat. ”Kalaupun hakim melakukan kesalahan, mestinya tidak mempengaruhi keputusan pengadilan,” katanya. Berikut wawancara wartawan Tempo, Abdul Manan, dengan Badrul, Jumat pekan lalu.

Pertempuran Habis-habisan di Depok

Badrul Kamal, bekas Wali Kota Depok, bak menggelar perang bubat, perang habis-habisan. Begitu Mahkamah Agung membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Jawa Barat dan menerima peninjauan kembali Komisi Pemilihan Umum Daerah Depok, Badrul segera menyusun gerakan baru. Ia tak mau kehilangan waktu. Rabu lalu, lewat kuasa hukumnya, ia meminta Mahkamah Konstitusi melakukan uji formal dan uji materiil atas keputusan Mahkamah Agung (MA) itu. ”Jika gugatan kami diterima, keputusan MA tidak berlaku,” kata kuasa hukum Badrul, Alberth M. Sagala.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Now, for the Mastermind

Police are to continue the investigation into Munir's murder, but everything depends on the president's level of commitment.

THE police now have some homework to do after the panel of judges at the Central Jakarta District Court sentenced Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto to 14 years in jail in the Munir murder case. During the court hearing, the judges said that it was shown that from August 25 up until the day Munir died, phone records show 41 phone contacts between Pollycarpus and cell phone number 0811900978 owned by Muchdi Purwoprandjono, a former Level V Deputy Director of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN).

The judges declared that Munir's murder was a conspiracy and in one point of clarification noted that there was a possibility that the one who gave the order for the murder was the person who spoke with Pollycarpus. Although there was no witness that overheard the conversation, "Between the defendant and the speaker on the phone there was an agreement about the manner in which Munir was to be killed," said presiding judge Cicut Sutiarso.

The judges' findings are not unlike those of the Fact-Finding Team's (TPF) earlier findings in the case. According to Asmara Nababan, the former deputy chair of the TPF, the telephone evidence was indeed an indication of BIN's involvement. The TPF is of the opinion that the one who gave the assassination order was the person who used Muchdi's phone. "Whether it was Muchdi or another person, we don't know yet," said Asmara.

Based on these facts, the TPF attempted to question BIN's former chief, Hendropriyono, Muchdi and BIN secretary Nurhadi Jazuli. But by the time the team's mandate ended on June 23, 2005, the team had still been unable to question them. The TPF says Asmara gave a recommendation to the president to investigate the three. "By questioning them, Muchdi, Hendropriyono and the others, we would know whether the case ends here or there is far more to it," said Asmara.

In an interview with Tempo, Hendropriyono denied that Munir was a target of a BIN operation. "Munir didn't enter our radar screen," he said (see Tempo June 13, 2005). As it turned out, at a court hearing on November 17, Muchdi denied having any telephone contact with Pollycarpus. According to Muchdi, his cell phone number that "keeps being mentioned" was given to him by PT Barito Pacific Timber and the company even paid for the cell phone's use. "So, anyone could have used the cell phone," he said. Muchdi, however, admitted to having once asked civil rights lawyer Adnan Buyung Nasution to warn Munir not to be too vocal in criticizing the government.

During the court hearing on Tuesday last week, the judge found that Muchdi's alibi was implausible. "The witness' testimony in relation to the hand-phone that could and may have been used by another person or anyone else that wanted to use it, without even once mentioning who the persons were, is totally
implausible," said the judges. Tempo has been unable to reach Muchdi for comment on the judges' statement. When contacted via his cell phone, a dial tone was audible and then cut out.

Speaking with Tempo, prosecutor Domu P. Sihite said that he would rather not comment on the judges' conclusions about Muchdi's alibi. According to Domu, when they submitted a printout of the telephone's use linked to Pollycarpus, Muchdi at that time did not deny the evidence. "But he denied that he was the one that had used the telephone," said Domu, adding that he was unable to force Muchdi to confess. "So, now it's up to the public to make an assessment."

According to former TPF member Rachlan Nasidik, the judges' decision points in the direction of there being a mastermind behind Munir's murder. "This is what must be pursued by the police," he said. According to Rachlan, the matter now rests on a commitment by the police and the president.

Speaking from the State Palace, presidential spokesperson Andi Mallarangeng stated that President Yudhoyono has already ordered National Police Chief Gen. Sutanto to take serious steps to solve the case. "The evidence that was revealed in the court will also be [taken as] a reference," said Mallarangeng. Sutanto has stated that they will continue to investigate the case and will be appealing to Pollycarpus to come clean. "So that we will know who is [really] behind it," he said.

Many people are concerned that the case will stop with Pollycarpus. One who shares this concern is Rachlan. Especially so, he says, if based on the fate of the TPF's former chair, Brig. Gen. Marsudi Hanafi, who appears to have been "dumped" and is now working as an expert staff member at National Police HQ. The fate of Marsudi says Rachlan, will undermine the courage of any investigators that seriously want to uncover the conspiracy behind the Munir case. "If a general can be treated like that, what about people like us," said Rachlan mimicking complaints expressed by police investigators in the case.

Abdul Manan, Budi Riza, Erwinda

TEMPO, JANUARY 02, 2006-017/P. 95 Heading Law

Busyro Muqoddas: Kami Justru Menghormati Bagir Manan

Kendati sudah melayangkan surat kedua, Ketua Komisi Yudisial Busyro Muqoddas mengaku tak bisa melakukan upaya paksa jika Ketua Mahkamah Agung itu menolak datang. “Undang-undang tidak memberikan kewenangan untuk itu,” kata Busyro saat diwawancarai wartawan Tempo, Abdul Manan, Kamis pekan lalu, di kantornya. Berikut petikan wawancara tersebut.
Apa persisnya latar belakang Komisi Yudisial memanggil Bagir Manan?
Kami memanggil Pak Bagir sebagai hakim agung yang menjadi ketua majelis perkara Probosutedjo. Ada beberapa hal yang akan kami tanyakan berkaitan dengan laporan yang kami dapat dari Probosutedjo, dan pemeriksaan Harini serta lima pegawai Mahkamah Agung.
Misalnya, Harini mengaku diterima Pak Bagir di ruang kerjanya sekitar September. Menurut Pak Bagir dalam pernyataan di pers, pertemuan itu sudah enam bulan yang lalu. Itu kan ada perbedaan. Lalu, Pak Bagir mengatakan Harini menemuinya cuma untuk pamitan karena sudah pensiun.

Kami ingin tanya, masa pamit harus dengan Ketua MA? Harini saat datang ke ruang kerja Pak Bagir mengaku sebagai keluarga Probosutedjo dan menyatakan Probosutedjo sedang ada masalah. Dia bertanya, apakah Bagir bisa membantu, dan Pak Bagir menjawab, “Coba tunggu saja nanti.”

Lalu, menurut versi Harini, pertemuan itu cuma satu menit. Saksi lain yang kita panggil mengatakan berlangsung lima sampai 10 menit. Kita analisis, wajar atau tidakkah orangnya kalau bertemu hanya satu menit. Kalau menyangkut materi, Bu Harini, kata Pono, mengatakan bahwa P (pembaca) 1 dan P2 sudah dibereskan. Sisi lain Pono juga mengatakan bahwa uang Rp 5 miliar dari Pak Probo itu akan diberikan kepada atasannya. Kami ingin tahu siapa atasannya itu.

Apakah uang itu disebutkan untuk Bagir Manan?
Itu juga yang akan kami mintakan keterangan. Soal benar atau tidak, bisa menjadi clear setelah kami memanggil.

Apa sebenarnya alasan Bagir Manan tak mau datang?
Ada empat poin yang ia sebutkan. Pertama, perkara dugaan suap dalam perkara Probo sedang ditangani KPK. Dalam suratnya, Pak Bagir menyatakan telah memberikan keterangan kepada KPK dalam pemeriksaan yang bersifat pro-yustisia sehingga sebaiknya KPK diberi kesempatan untuk menuntaskan pemeriksaannya.

Kedua, ia menyatakan tidak tahu-menahu mengenai perbuatan karyawan MA dalam hubungannya dengan Probo. Ketiga, selaku pimpinan MA, ia telah menggariskan seluruh jajaran MA memberikan akses kepada KPK dalam penyelidikan dan penyidikan kasus dugaan suap. Keempat, dengan alasan seperti itulah ia menyatakan tidak dapat memenuhi panggilan Komisi Yudisial.

Alasan itu bisa diterima?
Alasan soal pemeriksaan di KPK untuk kepentingan pro-yustisia bisa kami pahami. Untuk yang kedua, justru ini yang akan kami tanyakan. Kalau ada kasus suap di MA dan terjadi berkali-kali–saya sebagai pengacara 20 tahun sudah hafal itu–dilihat dari sudut manajemen tak bisa dilepaskan dari tanggung jawab orang nomor satu. Justru kami akan bertanya, bagaimana manajemen yang ia pimpin kok bisa ada kasus semacam ini.

Saya melihat, surat ini merupakan penolakan secara halus. Alasannya kan disebutkan bahwa ada pemeriksaan KPK yang bersifat pro-yustisia. Kami memeriksa bukan untuk pro-yustisia, tetapi dalam perspektif adanya dugaan pelanggaran kode etik perilaku hakim. Koridor kami di situ. Soal suap, biar tugas KPK.

Ada alasan lain dari keengganan Bagir Manan memenuhi panggilan?
Kepada pers, Pak Bagir mengatakan, “Kalau ke KPK saya tak hadir, sesuai asas equality (kesetaraan), ya, ke Komisi Yudisial tak hadir juga.” Apakah alasan itu dengan merujuk asas paling mendasar dalam hukum? Kalau dia konsekuen, hakim agung yang lain buktinya hadir, seperti Pak Parman Suparman (hakim agung yang juga memeriksa kasus Probo), hakim tinggi, dan juga hakim pengadilan negeri.

Bahkan hakim Pengadilan Negeri Sidoarjo, seorang perempuan, datang ke Jakarta naik bus. Sesuai dengan asas equality below the law, Pak Bagir seharusnya tampil prima dan legowo untuk menunjukkan, kalau bawahan hadir, tentu dengan jiwa besar dia juga hadir.

Kenapa Komisi Yudisial tidak datang saja ke MA seperti dilakukan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi?
Kami tidak akan hadir ke sana justru untuk menghormati beliau yang sekarang lagi menjabat Ketua MA. Kalau beliau nanti berkenan hadir pada panggilan kedua, orang akan respek. Sebaliknya, kalau kami hadir ke sana, kami khawatir nanti itu akan menjadi contoh dan stimulus yang kurang baik bagi hakim-hakim lain.

Ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi Jimly Asshiddiqie berencana mempertemukan Ketua Mahkamah Agung dengan Ketua Komisi Yudisial. Pendapat Anda?
Kalau bertemu antarlembaga penegak hukum, itu memang penting. Adapun mengenai substansinya, menurut Pak Jimly kan ada konflik kewenangan atau sengketa antara Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial. Kami tak melihat ini ada sengketa kewenangan. Perspektif Komisi Yudisial adalah kode etik perilaku hakim. Kompetensi Komisi Yudisial juga jelas, untuk melakukan pengawasan dan menegakkan kehormatan dan menjaga perilaku hakim seperti tertuang dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial.
Majalah Tempo, Edisi. 45/XXXIV/02 - 8 Januari 2006

Busyro Muqoddas: Kami Justru Menghormati Bagir Manan

02 JANUARI 2006

Foto: Indonesiafirst.com
Kendati sudah melayangkan surat kedua, Ketua Komisi Yudisial Busyro Muqoddas mengaku tak bisa melakukan upaya paksa jika Ketua Mahkamah Agung itu menolak datang. ?Undang-undang tidak memberikan kewenangan untuk itu," kata Busyro saat diwawancarai wartawan Tempo, Abdul Manan, Kamis pekan lalu, di kantornya. Berikut petikan wawancara tersebut.