메뉴 건너뛰기

참여연대 공식일정+ 더보기

PSPD  l  People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

  • Archive
  • 2001.01.31
  • 1148

Material of anti-corruption joint investigation team used at the work meeting between the attorney general of the republic of Indonesia and the Commission II of the legislative assembly of Indonesia ---Anti-corruption joint investigation team

1. INTRODUCTION

Background

Presently Indonesia is categorized as the number 5 of the 96 most corrupt states in the world. According to the International Transparency Community, that indicates can give picture of how chronic the Corruption practices in Indonesia. That condition may become a serious constraint in the effort to cope with the multi dimensional crisis being faced by Indonesia. The multi dimensional crisis caused by the recent economic crisis has spread all over so that it has disturbed the values of the nations social politic, including the disturbance of the community in obeying the Law.

The economic crisis, indicated by the flying away of the foreign capital from Indonesia and Rupiah sharp depreciation, has faded away all industrial sectors including companies which had been poorly managed in accordance with the sound management principles.

As the consequence, the unemployment rate has increased sharply, and more than 60 million of Indonesian people live in poverty. The slow recovery form the economic crisis as compared with other ASEAN countries such as Malaysia and Thailand is caused by, among others:

a. The Corruption practices which took place during the Soeharto centralized Administration indicates theses practices were developing intentionally and in a systematic way and spread over every walks of lives and were created as Soehartos efforts in dividing equally the development cake so that the action taken by soeharto and his cronies in stealing the national assets could be justified and he would not be blamed for abusing his power.

b. The immoral New Order regime who was in power for 32 years has pumped out all the natural resources and they saved all their assets in foreign banks so that it is difficult to trace out.

c. The legacy of the New Order Administration is the centralized and the authoritative systems, the power of the Legislative and the Judicial Body were under the Executive. Since there was no direct control from the public which should have been the real power holders has created the corrupt bureaucrats and they were very loyal and only served their uperiors. In general the government bureaucracy is still trapped under old paradigm and they are not willing to be the public servants yet, nor they are willing to organize the transparent and fair policies. The reform triggered by the students movement has just succeeded in removing the New Order regime, whereas in the executive levels, many of them have the corrupt behavior and mental.


d. While the legal and Judicial was neglected intentionally so that the Corrupt, Collusive and Nepotistic practices has spread out widely, reforms and cleaning up efforts in the judicial system face absolutely. The independent term of the judges has been used to cover up the old offenses. These practices reflecting so many judgment which are against the sense of fairness of the public. And in the business sector, a lot of decisions taken do not support the certainty of the business world in domestic scale and international scale so that this has disturbed the economic recovery. As the consequence, the crisis of trust in the judicial system and therefore the public trust has decreased drastically. And now the new trend has emerged and it is deviant from the civilized society, that is the effort to fill in their sense of fairness with the so called peoples justice.

The description mentioned above gives the clear picture that Corruption does not only cause the state finance loss and disturb the recovery from the multi dimensional crisis, but the more devastating is the cost of the corruption itself that must be paid by the Indonesians, and if theses practices are let developed freely, theses are the cost:

a) The loss of sense of togetherness among the Indonesian people, and this nation will be easily torn out just because of different opinion and narrow minded interest.

b) As if the Indonesian people have no dignity nor the power and willingness to develop the country, and everything to be done has to wait the instruction from the donor countries.

c) The competitive power with other countries will be decreasing in this free global market era. If we let that condition continue, the Indonesian people will become coolie of other nations and they will not be the master in their own country.

2. Combating Corruption is the National Commitment

After the collapse of the New Order regime, peoples demand to combat the Corrupt practices which have entrenched in most of bureaucracy during the New Order Regime, are very high. Therefore Combating Corruption has become a National Commitment, the formality of which has been decreed by the Peoples Consultative Assembly in No. S?MPR?1998 regarding the Clean and Good governance and Free from the Corruption, Collusive and Nepotistic, which regulate, for instance:

Increase the government openness in their efforts to cope with the Corruption, Collusive and Nepotistic practices and other practice that potentially create state financial losses.

Develop the clean government as the public service to carry out duties based on the law and regulation, as the effort in increasing the government credibility in the eyes of the people.

Prepare the infrastructure and the means, and the action program to create the conducive situation and free from Corruption, Collusive and Nepotistic.

In order to carry out the above functions, the Government Officials must be honest, just open and credible and be able to free themselves from Corruption, Collusive and Nepotistic.

The provisions as contained in those decree must be applied into the prevailing regulations, that is the Law No. 28/1999 regarding the State Administration free from the Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism and the Law NO.31/1999as the substitute of the law No.3 Year 1971 regarding Combating Corruption. The New Anti Corruption Law, in Article 42 point

(1)require that on 31st of August 2001 the Anti Corruption Commission should have been established, the member of which should comprise the element from Government and prominent member of society.

However, the Government then realizes that the political reform will not be able solely to cope the problem in the legal area which deal with the unjust which was common during the New Order regime. Furthermore in the upholding supremacy of the law, the reform has not been able to create the behavior changes and the mental attitude of the law enforcement officers and make them clean, honest and professional. And due to condition above, people trust toward the credibility of law enforcement officers has decreased drastically. In order to gain the people trust and invite the public participation in combating Corruption, we need supervision of the government and direct participation from the people simultaneously. In that way we hope the movement and steps taken by the government in combating Corruption in order to create the clean and good governance will not be far from the peoples wish. By inviting direct participation from the people in upholding the supremacy of the law, there are changes in the strategy in upholding the supremacy of the law, particularly in combating Corruption. Therefore, before the Agency as mandated by the Law No.31 Year 1999 is established, the Government should set up a team, that is called Anti Corruption Joint Investigation Team, the Agency is expected by the people to empower the law enforcement officers, related institution, and the public in the cultural and structural aspect, and on the carry out their function and authorities in accordance with the prevailing legal formal system(Criminal Law Procedure).

ANTI-CORRUPTION JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAM(ACJIT)

The established Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team(ACJIT) The legal ground of the Establishment of the ACJIT. The legal ground of the Establishment of the Corruption Case Act Combat is Article 27of the law No.31 Year 1999: In case there is a Complex Corruption case, Anti-corruption Joint Investigation Team could be established under the Attorney General coordination Article 32 of letter b of the Law No.5 Year 1991: The Attorney General has duties and powers to coordinate with the related institutions the handling of the particular criminal act based on the Law in form of Presidential decree The Government Regulation No.19 Year 2000 in Article4 Verse 1. The Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team is established by the Attorney General and be responsible directly under the Attorney General.

Verse 2. The Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team as referred to in verse (1), practicing g its duty and powers under coordination of the Attorney General.

Form and Specification of ACJIT

The elucidation of Article 18, the Government Regulation No. 19 Year 2000: This Article is meant to affirm, that the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Joint investigation Team as first step and as an embryo of the Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team which will be established in 2001.

Form of the ACJIT is an independent institution, practicing duties and powers, free from any power, including from the executive and legislative power. ACJIT Coordination in investigation and changing the Corruption Case is temporary due to this ACJIT is just an embryo to the establishment of the Anti-Corruption joint Investigation Team, and the ACJIT practicing their duties and powers before the establishment of the Commission.

The Membership and Powers of the ACJIT

1. ACJIT comprise:
-National police;
-Public Prosecution Service;
-The related institution, and
-Prominent Leader of society.

2. Duties and Powers of the ACJIT are:
-Coordinating the investigation and charging anyone who is suspected committing complex corruption case.
-Requesting information from the bank and if necessary, request the bank to freeze the suspect account.
-Opening, inspecting, confiscating package, telecommunication and the other quipment which is suspected having relation with Corruption case being investigated.
-Tapping.
-Putting travel ban.
-Recommending to the chief/ superior of the accused and based on the adequate evidence to suspend the accused temporarily from his post.
-In case the accused dies while the investigation is still underway, and in reality the state loss has been detected, the ACJIT within at least 10 working days shall submit their investigation outcome to the Government Lawyer or the institution that undergoes loss to be followed up through the civil procedure toward his/her legal heir in accordance with the provision of Article 33 of Law No. 31 Year 1999.
-In case the accused dies during his/her prosecution in the state court, and in reality the state loss has been detected, the Government Lawyer within at least 10 working days shall submit copy of dossier to the Government Lawyer or to the related institution that undergoes loss to be followed up through the civil procedure toward his/her legal heir in accordance with the provision of Article 34 of Law No.31 Year 1999.
-In case the accused dies before court takes its decision and there exists strong evidence that the concerned people has committed the Corruption crime, the Judge, based on the demand from the Public Prosecutor, shall decide the expropriation of the goods being confiscated in accordance with the provision in Article 38 point(5) of the Law No. 31 Year 1999.

2. Vision and Mission of the ACJIT

Vision
Create the pre-condition to support the success of the Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team.
Develop coordination, openness and accountability of the public in combating the Corruption Crime.

Mission
Coordinate the investigation and the prosecution of the complex Corruption Crime.
Carry out the synergy in cultural and in structural sector among the legal officers, the related institution and among the members of the society.

3. ACJIT Strategy

Absorb the public aspiration directly by opining, receiving and following up the report derived from the public.
All jurisdiction decisions shall be orifice to the Supreme Court, and the combating corruption in the office of the Supreme Court itself will give the positive chained effect in the upholding of the law, particularly in around the jurisdiction system in all levels.
Hold a routine meeting with the public organization, with the Self Supporting Institution, Professional Organization who have concern about the combating corruption so that the synergy and similar steps will take place in combating the corruption crime.
Coordinate and monitor the implementation of the combating corruption in the region by establishing the Duty Unit of the ACJIT in the region and is supervised by the member of the ACJIT.

The Outcome

Since its establishment, the ACJIT with of the Attorney generals decree No. KEP-102/J>A/S/2000 dated 23rd May 2000, till 7th October 2000(more or less 4 months) in implementing its duty and authority, in its coordination for the investigation of the assumption of the corruption, the ACJIT has received report both from the Office of the Attorney General and from the public at 186 reports, the details are as follows

**표 1) 103 page

Report classification based on the reported institution is as follows

**표 2) 104 page

Such of handling/report solution is as follows

** 표 3) 104 page

The 4(four) cases being investigated are:

1. Assumption of the Corruption crime taken place at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia in relation to the handling of the civil case No. 560K/Pdt/1997.

2. Assumption of the Corruption Crime taken place at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia in relation to the Rechecking of the Bankruptcy matter on decision No. 022/K/N/1999 jo Decision of the Commercial Court No. 34/Pailit/1999P.

3. Assumption of the Corruption Crime taken place at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia in relation to the bribery to win the case of the Rechecking Matter No.03/PK/TUN/1997.

4. Assumption of the Corruption Crime taken place at the PT Garuda Indonesia in relation to the State Financial Administration at US$ 1,077,325,062.48

 

From the 186 reports entered into the office of the ACJIT, 24% of them are only about the grudges. What makes it interesting, seeing from the classification of the report derived from the institution reported is that, 32% of the report is related to the Jurisdiction Institution.

In carrying out that duty, the ACJIT always follows the legal procedures, that is, in carrying out the investigation ACJIT always fulfills the legal principle. The investigation Order is prepared and signed by the Attorney General. And in carrying out investigate, they are the active police and the prosecutor, while the other ACJIT members who are not investigators or Prosecutors who comprise other institution, like Experts, Researchers and the Self Supporting Institution support the jurisdiction argument and they also accelerate and enlarge the data network and information related to the case being investigated by the ACJIT.

IV. Constrain in the Combating Corruption Crime

Culture
Clture is the very basic part of the life because it is the motivator of what is being done by a nation. The nation that respects the collective values will act differently with the nation with the individual values.

The culture which is based on the collective values is not only monopolized by Indonesia, but we can meet it at the eastern nations, like in Japan, Korea and Muangthai. The cultural factor actually has more relation with methods of combating corruption Compared with the corruption itself, Because in Japan and In Muangthai the corruption is also combated.

The combating corruption in the collective cultural atmosphere take much energy, because we must look for ways not to harm the collective sentiment . The police are reluctant to directly investigate the Supreme Court though they have obtained permit from the President. By fulfilling the request from the Supreme Court to investigate the inside matter beforehand, due to the cultural background, the ACJIT who has obtained approval from the President directly investigated the assumption of the Corruption Crime committed by the two Supreme Judges, they were attacked and tried to be made fail in the investigation. It was judged that, based on the horizontal supervision system, they were ordered to stop the investigation. Whereas according to Criminal Law Procedure there should be no pre-jurisdiction body that could stop the investigation. Article 77 of the Criminal Law Procedure the pre-jurisdiction authority has been determined in limit, they only have the authority to determine about whether captive, detention, stop of the investigation or the stop of the prosecution, and or prosecution, compensation for the losses, rehabilitation for those whose criminal case is stopped at the stage of the investigation or the prosecution is legal or not. The officer is hindered by that cultural background.

The Indonesian culture is also in the pre-modern stage, so it is not modern yet. The core of the modern culture is the ratio. Compared with the eastern Asian nations in general, Indonesia is still in the process of becoming a modern state. The ratios in the society taking place in society are in coincident with the birth of the public sector or the private sector. From here, there emerges bureaucratic discourse(modern), the division between the two sectors are not done 100% yet. The public sector and the private sector are still mixed, so that something which should be done by the public sector is done by the private sector. The institutions, Agency, Offices are the public sector, but an office chief will treat the institution under like his own possession. The society who is not modern yet, accept and legalize the private behavior . The people often regard that the institution inventories are justified if they are treated as the private possession by the chief. The public do not say anything but they only accept and justify that matter. The situation like this fertilize the corruption. The corruption itself has become the collective corruption. This kind of corruption is not the ACJIT authority anymore, but it has become the duty of the nation education. So the ACJIT has to accept the cultural heritage or the society like that. Form here we can see that the combating corruption is a very complex matter and therefore it cannot only be burdened to the police alone, to the Prosecutor or to the police.

Politics

The state has become a field for corruption and the corruption itself is also combated. The state is run daily by the various physical institution in real, particularly by the Government.

In the Law No. 31 Year 1999 and in the Law No.3 Year 1971 regarding the Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team, the certain point taken as measurement to determine corruption is the loss incurred to the state. The state is run daily by the Government. So it is actually logical if the government dos not want any corruption taking place in their body. This is called the political willingness to combat the corruption. Therefore we should differentiate between the political willingness and the political rhetoric. The political rhetoric only stops at the expression of itself, while the political willingness is followed up with the concrete steps. For example there is not Combating Corruption Crime program in the Central Java Region of 2000 to 2005, there is not combating Corruption Crime program in the design made by the Central Java BAPPEDA, but in the design they include the clean government program.

About the political aspect, the steps taken by the State Audit Agency for Development (1999) state that there is no clear national strategy about the combating Corruption Crime:

1. Effort to combat the Corruption crime is less socialized;
2. The Combating corruption Crime has not involved all the nations potency:
3. The aim to be reached and the activity to be carried out is not defined exactly.
4. The combating Corruption Crime is not done in coordination, and
5. There is no periodic evaluation.

Then the state Audit Agency for Development states about the leadership model, weak supervision, weak accountability and weak management control. They also stated efforts
to cover up the Corruption Crime taking place in the institution.

System

The Combating Corruption Crime in charged to the ACJIT is not a blank mandate but it shall be done Though the regulation channel and certain procedures. The regulation and procedure must be followed, and therefore the regulation and the procedure is the constraint. Here again wee see the complex of the combating Corruption Crime itself because the legislative must also be responsible, for example the legislative who facilitate the proving procedure will be very helpful as compared to the one that makes it difficult.

The law is the one thing and the human is the one who operates the law and is the other thing. The Combating Corruption Crime will be more successful if there is emphatic, dedication and commitment from the man who will combat the corruption. This especially involves the judges. Because our system focuses on the judges themselves. Though the regulation maybe the same, but the judge with the different emphatic and commitment will produce different decision.

Sample of Cases:

The interpretation of the law that is deviated by the pre-jurisdiction judge of the State Court of South Jakarta in his decision of the case No. 11/Pid/Pra/2000/PN .Jak.Sel. Where in their legal judgment it was said that:

1. TGPTPK is not authorized to investigate the Corruption Crime taking place during the application of Law No.3 Year 1971. ACJIT is only authorized to investigate the Corruption Crime after the application of the Law No.31 Year 1999.


2. The bribery case committed by a Supreme Judge is not categorized as a difficult case to prove(clarification of the Article 27 of the Law No.31 Year 1999).

According to me, judgment of the Pre-jurisdiction Judge is deviated when seeing from the law principle and based on the reasons, among others as follows:

1. Article 43 point(1) and (2) of the Law No. 31 Year 1999 states that, at least within 2(two)years from the application of this Law, the Commission for the corruption Crime shall be established; and they shall be in charged and be authorized to coordinate and supervise, including the carrying out of the inquiry and investigation and the prosecution in accordance with the prevailing regulation.

Since the Commission is not established yet, according to law the ones who have authority to investigate are the police and the prosecutor as stipulated in the Book of Law and the Legal Criminal Procedure.

2. ACJIT is not an investigating and prosecuting institution, but it is a consolidation Team who coordinate the investigation and prosecution to the corruption cases which are difficult to prove. It is wrong and baseless to say that the ACJIT is an investigating and prosecuting institution that is established after the application of the Law No. 31 Year 1999. and therefore it is only authorized to investigate the Corruption Crime which is threatened with the Law No. 31 Year 1999. The reasons are as follows:

a. The establishment of the new investigating institution must be based on the Law and not only on the Government Regulation. Therefore the new institution for the investigation and for the prosecution as meant by the Law No. 31 Year 1999 is the Commission which is to be established with the Law, and not the Consolidation Team established by the Government Regulation.

b. The Attorney General as the chief and the responsible person with the highest authority in the prosecution has no authority to establish the investigating and prosecuting institution beyond the Attorney General organization. If the ACJIT is formed as the new investigating and prosecuting institution, its existence will be opposition institution and that is not allowed by the Law. Because the one who is authorized to establish the new investigating institution is the Parliament and the Executive and the regulation is the form of the Law.

c. Since the ACJIT is not a new investigating and prosecuting institution but is a coordinating institution in the investigation and prosecution, the one who has the authority to investigate and prosecute is not ACJIT but it is authorized to the functional officer who becomes member of the ACJIT, they are the police and the prosecutor.

d. Since the ACJIT is not a new investigating and prosecuting institution, the police and the prosecutor have their right to investigate and prosecute toward the Corruption Crime taking place before the application of the Law No. 31 year 1999, except that the police and the prosecutor later become members of the Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team whose duties and powers regulated by the Law.

3. That the Law No. 31 Year 1999 clarifies that what is meant by the Corruption Crime which is difficult to prove is , among others , the existence of the phrase among other proves that; types criminal acts which are difficult to prove are not limited, and in our opinion, the acts that are difficult to prove are the briberies spreading out in the jurisdiction fields, particularly in the Supreme Court, whom until now, no one has been successful to drag them to the court.

Legal effort is not opened for the appeal toward the pre-jurisdiction, but since the decision according to us is the collective conspiracy from the State Court of South Jakarta to protect the Supreme Judge from the cleaning effort carried out in the jurisdiction fields from the bribery act, which is being carried out by the ACJIT.

Anytime, the Parliament as the representation of the people aspiration, can request the confirmation form the State Highest Institutes, particularly from the judicature regarding the political commitment in carrying out their function through their decisions, and the political commitment regarding the Combating Corruption Crime through the internal cleaning for the bribery act. Therefore, as an effort to prevent the judge from making decision which profitable to the corrupters, we hope the Parliament will be able to support the reformation which is able to change the jurisdiction system toward the creation of the clean jurisdiction, just and transparent.

IV. CLOSING

Conclusion

In our effort to combat the corruption for the last four months, it is known that this matter is more complex and has more root as compared to one predicted beforehand.

The resistance is very strong because there is impression that the corruption spread out has entered into all walks of lives of the nation, while the family and comrades of the former New Order regime still have very strong fund, politic and military support and they are trying hard to cope with the reformation movement. The transparency which is the pre-condition for the good government, gives the impression that they seem to threaten to demolish the chance for the middle bureaucrat toward the lowest ones, while they let the high ranking officials be free in practicing the Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism.

The fact that, the efforts by the ACJIT in creating the good pre-condition for the success of the Commission of the Anti Corruption Case(KAK) through the investigation coordination and prosecution for a number of the corruption cases face the very serious constraints, In order that the mission be succeed, the last four months experience and the remaining limit time can be made as an important infrastructure and be integrated into the future work program.

The effort in combating the Corruption Case need to be more focused to revelation and the solution of the big corruption cases so that the just aspiration of the people can be fulfilled. Accordingly, the existing legal basis need to be improved in order that the transitional activity can produce a good gain.

The more systematic and directive way should be carried out to gain the peoples support widely toward the Combating Corruption Crimes.

 

Expectation

In order that the executive can carry out their mission, the Joint Team hopes the support from the Parliament. It should be better that the support to be received from the Parliament, besides the critic or the control to the work to be carried out the Consolidation Team which may not be suited with the wish of the public, the support should be also include suggestion and opinion to increase the effectiveness of the Combating Corruption Crimes.

The concrete support can be forwarded by the Parliament itself, among others:
a. To fight for the adequate budget for the increased effort in upholding the legal procedure including the Combating Corruption Crimes.
b. To fight for the selection of the Supreme Court Chairman from the one with good integrity and capability to combat the corruption.
c. To fight for the legal basis for the effectiveness of the ACJIT.

This hope is based on a belief that we are all present here tonight as the children of the nation who should carry out the national mandate and we should work hard in order that our state and nation be clean and free from the Corruption, Collusive and the Nepotistic.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Presently Indonesia is categorized as the number 5 of the 96 most corrupt states in the world. According to the International Transparency Community, that indicates can give picture of how chronic the Corruption practices in Indonesia.

That condition may become a serious constraint in the effort to cope with the multi dimensional crisis being faced by Indonesia. The multi dimensional crisis caused by the recent economic crisis has spread all over so that it has disturbed the values of the nations social politic, including the disturbance of the community in obeying the Law. The evolving of corruption in every human life has threatened recovering process national economy. Therefore Indonesia has solved to fight against the Combating Corruption. Crime constitutes National commitment as determined in Peoples Consultative Assembly Decree No. X/MPR/1998 and No. XI/MPR/1998 then performed by under law and regulation, by withdrawing Law No. 28 of 1999 and Law No. 31of 1999. For free from KKN (Corruption, Collusive and Nepotistic) but also solve KKN matters caused implementation of the previous government which was beneficial to certain party.

Centralization of power, authority and responsibility were in one hand without giving any role to community to participate in effective social controlling to the Government, from this cause appears negative effects in life of politic, economy, monetary and law, which all not reach to community but they just as instrument to sustain the corrupt power. Therefore, in the both law and regulation to increase public confidence should provide big opportunity for community to participate in controlling to Government of against action of violation the law conducted by the Governance. In additional to increase credibility to law enforcement mainly in inspecting, investigating and corruption crime prosecution, the permanent leader of society element should be involved directly as member of Commission for Corruption Crime as mandated Law No. 31 of 1999, and should formed at least 31st of August 2001.

The establishment of the Joint Team is meant as a model before the Commission for Combating Corruption Crime established, so expected in one side it is able to synchronize works between law enforcement and other institution and society in another side, in contradiction in the Criminal Law Procedure(KUHAP).

2. The principle of forming of the Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation

Team (ACJIT), is Article 27 of Law No. 31 of 1999 Jo. Article 32 letter b Law No. 5 of 1991 jo article 4 Government Regulation No. 19 of 2000. The Joint Team established and responsible under Attorney General and in performing its duties and powers under Attorney General coordination. ACJIT constitutes independent institution to perform its duties and powers free from any influence, involved executive and legislative powers, while it is illustrated temporary until the Commission formed. The membership of ACJIT consists of National Police, Public Prosecution Service, related Institution and Prominent leader of society.

The duties and powers of ACJIT are to coordinate investigating and prosecution to assailant of complex corruption crime, in performing investigating and prosecution by member and team have attached the authority on functional occupation as an investigator of National Police and Public Prosecution Service.

Strategy of ACJIT receives communitys aspiration by inviting complaint of community, give priority to handling of serial case for enforcement of supremacy of law.

Since ACJIT established approximately 4 months has received a report, either from community of from attorney General of Republic of Indonesia as amount of 186 reports concerns with Judicature Institution 60 (32%), GovernmentBUMN (State Owned Corporation) 45, individual 6, foundation 2, banking 4, Cooperation 3, others 66.

The report handling stage is : research stage 133, investigating stage 5, inspecting stage 4, can not be followed up as being not supported by sufficient evidence/just a grudges 44 reports.

3. The Corruption has declined every section life, ACJIT with short working period (approximately 1 year) it is impossible to solve all combating.

Determination of giving priority go handling should be performed when the decision (without ignoring other field) is Justice institution mainly Supreme Court, based on consideration that in the Supreme Court, based on consideration that in the Supreme Court as the last expectation for public to obtain justice. But it looks resistance of the institution is great enough, in addition ACJIT conducts investigation to 2 Justice of the Supreme Court, according to most of their colleague estimated as have hurt collective sentiment . Therefore the decision of pre court constitutes a realization of collective solidarity of their colleague by contributing Law cover and states that ACJIT has not authority to provide investigating to the crime occurred before prevailing Law No.31 of 1999 and bribery case that assumed conducted by Justice of the Supreme Court. Peoples Consultative Assembly Decree No. XI/MPR/1998 in article 4 states Initiative to combat Corruption, Collusive, and Nepotistic should be performed legally to everyone, elther State official or former of State official.etc .

Thus the principle and enthusiasm of Peoples Consultative Assembly Decree followed up by Law No.31 of 1999 is not only combating corruption in the next period but also the previous period. The principle value is as standard of justice for the previous crime with new law and regulation is to form restorative justice not only retributive justice (i.e. justice is used to enforce its law) but also bring justice to people, because of this justice essence should be realized not only use legalistic procedure.

4. The initiative to combat the corruption in the last 4 months reveals

that this problem is very complex and more complicated than assumed before. The resistance is great because it impressed as the corruption spread has rushed into all human life, while the family and Entrepreneurs crony of New Order still have power of financial, politic and military, they try to prevent reformation pressure.

Transparency becomes precondition of good government administration, impressed threaten more to loose the opportunity of middle to low bureaucracy on the other hand they please the senior official free to conduct KKN.

The initiative to eliminate the corruption should be focused more to reveal and solve great corruption case, so justice sense of community complied. Therefore the available principle of law should be declared in order the transitional activity get success. The systematical and guided effort should be provide to reach communitys support on the effort on combating corruption.

5. To be more effective in perfoming its mission, the Joint Team expects

Legislative Assembly"s support. It is better if the support beside constitutes critic and controlling upon the Joint Team Performance inappropriate to community"s expectation, also involve suggestion and opinion to increase effective effort to eliminate corruption crime.

Anti-Corruption Joint Investigation Team
지금 내가 할 수 있는 참여와 행동에 동참해주세요
참여연대 회원가입·후원하기
목록
제목 날짜
The 20th Anniversary Declaration of PSPD 2019.07.20
[Invitation] International Conference on Protection of Rohingya Survivors and Acc... 2019.07.17
PSPD Annual Report 2017 2018.12.27
How to find PSPD? 2012.11.17
About PSPD 2017.06.09
Editor's Note   2001.04.03
National Defense System of the Bush Administration   2001.04.03
Profile and activities of APFS (Asian People"s Fri   2001.01.31
PSPD's Campaign for the Enactment of Anti-Corruption   2001.01.31
Editor"s Note   2001.01.31
Indonesia : Material of anti-corruption joint investigation team   2001.01.31
Thailand : Fight against Corruption   2001.01.31
The Philippines : Civil Society-Oriented Measures for Enhancing Transparency and ...   2001.01.31
Korea : Economic Consequences of Corruption in Korea   2001.01.31
An Overview of the ASEM 2000 People's Forum   2001.01.31
Rethinking ASEM and the Role of Social Actors   2001.01.31
Taipei : Empowering Conference of asian NGOs   2001.01.31
The Role of NGOs in the Democratic Transition   2001.01.31
How to build "Transitional Justice (TJ)"   2001.01.31
Editor's Note   2000.10.31
Collaboration between PSPD and Resource Centre for Asian NGOs   2000.10.31
Past and Present of Foreign Workers in Korea 1987-2000   2000.10.31
Joint Committee for Migrant Workers in Korea   2000.10.31
The Resource Center for Asian NGOs and Leadership   2000.10.31
The Inter-Korean Economic Exchanges and Co-operation   2000.10.31
© k2s0o1d4e0s2i1g5n. Some Rights Reserved