IN WIN FOR REFORM, PARLIAMENT NIXES SUPREME COURT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 JAKARTA 001871 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, EAP/MLS, INL FOR ROESS DEPT FOR EEB/IFD/OMA DOJ/OPDAT FOR BERMAN/ALEXANDRE SINGAPORE FOR TREASURY/BAKER MCC FOR LONGI NSC FOR EPHU E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/07/2018 TAGS: PGOV KJUS KCOR KMCA PREL ID SUBJECT: IN WIN FOR REFORM, PARLIAMENT NIXES SUPREME COURT BILL REF: JAKARTA 1631 AND PREVIOUS JAKARTA 00001871 001.2 OF 002 ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Amid mounting pressure from pro-judicial reform groups, the Indonesian Parliament (DPR) has decided to postpone indefinitely consideration of a controversial Supreme Court bill. The bill would have extended the mandatory retirement age for the justices of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Bagir Manan, from 65 to 70 years. The lack of action on the bill is regarded as being good for reform efforts given that the Chief Justice and several of the other justices due to retire are not considered pro-reform. The selection process for the next Chief Justice has already begun. END SUMMARY. HASTY DELIBERATIONS ¶2. (SBU) The controversial bill focused on extending the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court justices from 65 to 70 was pushed through DPR committee and plenary sessions in record speed. After less than three weeks of deliberations, the full DPR took up the bill on September 24. The urgency was due to the imminent mandatory retirement of Chief Justice Bagir Manan. Current law stipulates that Supreme Court justices must retire at the age of 65. In 2006, Chief Justice Manan issued a decree extending his own retirement age to 67 years of age. In the debate on the bill, Democratic Party, National Mandate Party and Golkar Party lawmakers, with whom the Chief Justice is closely linked, twice attempted to force a vote so that the Chief Justice could remain in power. MOUNTING OPPOSITION LEADS TO LACK OF ACTION ON BILL ¶3. (SBU) On October 6, as Manan turned 67, it was clear that the bill would not pass. Mounting public pressure from the legal community, NGOs, and former prominent justices had grown with these groups asserting that the bill would undermine court reform. Parliament factions, led by the opposition Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), opposed the bill largely because they saw it as a transparent ploy to keep Golkar ally Manan in power. Although Bagir Manan will now need to step down, he has stated he would remain in the position until he received an official letter from the President demanding his retirement. The letter is expected to be delivered by November 1. ¶4. (SBU) Particularly notable was the criticism of several former prominent justices, who on September 24 announced their objection to the bill. They asserted that extending the retirement age for justices would lead to poor performance, lengthen the regenerative process and reduce the prospect of substantive court reform. They urged the DPR to focus on other pro-reform judicial-related bills such as the revision of the law on judicial monitoring, the review of the Anti-Corruption law and the regulations on the Supreme Court, etc. ¶5. (SBU) The bill has been indefinitely postponed and is probably dead, for all practical purposes. Its central provision--to lengthen Supreme Court justice terms in office--is likely to find support unless integrated into a broader set of reforms. The issue has considerable practical impact. Of the current 48 Supreme Court justices, eight are scheduled to retire in 2008, ten in 2009 and nine in 2010. None of the eight justices who were scheduled to retire in 2008 have submitted their resignation letters, citing the bill as the primary reason for the delay. JAKARTA 00001871 002.2 OF 002 MANAN'S LEGACY NOT IMMEDIATELY CLEAR ¶6. (C) While the failure to extend justices' terms is regarded as being good for court reform, Manan's retirement could have mixed results. When Manan extended his term in 2006, legislators saw Manan as a reformer who would facilitate court reform. Instead, according to civil society groups and experts, Manan's performance has fallen somewhat short (see reftels). Some of this was because of his lack of managerial skills. Whether his retirement is a step forward will depend on who replaces him. That is also the case for the other justices who have to be replaced (several of whom have very poor reputations). The Indonesian judiciary continues to be a real problem and to need reform badly, and it is important that the next Chief Justice be up to that challenge. HUME