SUPREME COURT UNDER FIRE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 JAKARTA 003469

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, INR/EAP, INL FOR BOULDIN
DEPT FOR EEB/IFD/OMA
DOJ/OPDAT FOR LEHMANN/ALEXANDRE/BERMAN
SINGAPORE FOR BAKER
TREASURY FOR IA-BAUKOL
DEPT PASS FEDERAL RESERVE SAN FRANCISCO FOR FINEMAN
DEPT PASS EXIM BANK
DEPT PASS USTR FOR DKATZ, RBAE
NSC FOR EPHU

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/27/2017
TAGS: PGOV KJUS KCOR KMCA ID
SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT UNDER FIRE

REF: A. SURABAYA 91


B. JAKARTA 3293

C. JAKARTA 2974

D. JAKARTA 2953

E. JAKARTA 2722

Classified By: POL/C Joseph Legend Novak, reasons 1.4(b+d).


1. (U) This message was coordinated with Consulate General
Surabaya.


2. (C) SUMMARY: A recent Supreme Court decision ordering
new provincial elections in South Sulawesi has revived
allegations of incompetence and political influence peddling
at the Court. Critics of the decision--which has thrown the
election into confusion--say that the Court overstepped its
authority. The ruling may impact the resolution of other
electoral disputes. Meanwhile, the Court continues to fight
tooth and nail against external auditing of certain accounts.
END SUMMARY.

COURT GENERATES FIRESTORM


3. (SBU) The Supreme Court generated yet another firestorm
after ordering new provincial elections in four regencies
(district areas) of South Sulawesi province (ref A). The
putative loser of the poll--incumbent governor Amin Syam, who
is backed by the Golkar party--appealed to the Court after
losing by a margin of less than 1%. On December 19, the
Court agreed with Syam that voting irregularities had taken
place in four districts and ordered that the authorities
repeat the election in those areas. The ruling has spurred
demonstrations and uncertainty in Sulawesi, where local
election officials say that they have neither funds nor clear
guidelines for conducting a new election.


4. (U) The ruling has been challenged both within the Court
and without. Two of the five justices reportedly issued a
dissenting opinion arguing that the Court does not have the
authority to order new elections. Critics of the decision
agreed, stating that the election law allows the Court to
determine the winner in a disputed election but not to order
a re-vote. The head of one NGO went further, claiming that
the Court has essentially abdicated its responsibility to
resolve the election dispute. South Sulawesi's election
board has said it will request a judicial review of the
decision.

LARGER IMPLICATIONS


5. (SBU) Observers have also raised concerns about the
impact of the decision on Indonesia's fledgling democracy.
The Court will be reviewing disputed elections in other
regions in the near future, including in North Maluku (ref B)
and Lampung in southern Sumatra. Critics worry that
inconclusive elections that lead to drawn-out litigation will
sap resources and, over time, lessen enthusiasm for elections
and voting among Indonesians.


6. (C) Some observers have suggested that the judges were
influenced by political factors. A second poll would allow
voters who chose the third candidate--who presumably no
longer has a chance of winning--to switch their votes.
According to one report, Syam is better positioned to gain
those votes and thus win the election. Moreover, Syam's
running mate is the brother-in-law of Vice President (and
Golkar Chairman) Jusuf Kalla, who also hails from the
province. A loss in South Sulawesi--a longtime Golkar
stronghold--would be damaging both to the party and to Kalla
personally.

AUDITORS NOT WELCOME


7. (C) The allegations of political interference serve to
reinforce the popular perception of the Court as secretive

JAKARTA 00003469 002 OF 002


and corrupt (ref C and D). The Court's continued refusal to
submit fully to external auditing has added further fuel to
this fire. Earlier in December, a Ministry of Finance
auditing body revealed that 40 provincial courts--which are
under administrative control of the Supreme Court--had not
submitted accounts data as required and claimed that the
Court had been "uncooperative" with the audit. Moreover, the
Court has continued to deny the Supreme Audit Board (BPK)
access to the case fees it collects, claiming that the GOI
has yet to clarify the regulations as promised in an
agreement last September (ref E).

WHITHER THE COURT?


8. (C) The USG remains engaged in institutional reforms at
the Court through major USAID and Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) Threshold Program projects, and progress is
being made on some fronts. That said, the Court is not
popular with the public and all the recent publicity is not
helping it. The highest levels of the Court need to move
quickly to improve its image before that image deteriorates
further, but, so far, there is little sign of urgency.


HUME