How successful are Indonesia's anti-corruption prosecutions? Have constitutional and legislative changes threatened the success of the courts?
Professor Ìýhas been studying the effectiveness of Indonesia’s corruption courts, particularly in regional areas. This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC)ÌýÌý(2015–21).
These courts, and the Anti-Corruption Commission prosecutions they decide, had, for several years since their establishment in 2004 maintained a 100% conviction rate, which was widely considered to be a ‘’ in Indonesia. This was surprising, given Indonesia’s long history of high levels of public sector corruption. But the conviction rate had also raised questions about whether corruption cases wereÌý. SeveralÌýÌýappeared to threaten the pillars upon which the ‘success’ of the corruption courts had been attributed. These pillars are the separation of these courts from the existing judiciary, and the use of ad hoc judges.
Working with leading academic researchers from theÌý, Yogyakarta, Professor Butt has collected data to enable an assessment of Indonesia’s corruption courts, and to determine the effect of these constitutional and legislative changes. Detailed research and findings appear in Professor Butt’s forthcoming book,ÌýJudicial Dysfunction in IndonesiaÌý(to be published by Melbourne University Press in late 2022 or early 2023).
These findings suggest that the corruption courts have largely met the purposes for which they were established. But these courts hear too few cases to significantly reduceÌýÌýin Indonesia, and have done nothing to improve the overall quality of the Indonesian judiciary. Indeed, some of the broader dysfunctional elements crippling the judiciary as a whole — such as corruption, andÌýÌý(many of which have been presided over by judges widely regarded asÌý) — have infected the corruption courts themselves. This is clear from recent prosecutions for corruption of almost 30 judges from most branches of the Indonesian judiciary, in which judges fromÌýÌýhave been overrepresented.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which oversees most Indonesian courts, assesses performance of courts and judges primarily by reference to efficiency measures. This research calls for a return to formal examination of judicial decisions, to help improve the quality of judicial reasoning, which remains generallyÌý, including in theÌýÌý¾±³Ù²õ±ð±ô´Ú.
This project is funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) ARC Future Fellowship 2015, Grant ID:Ìý.
Ìý(Oxford University Press, 2018, co-authored with Tim Lindsey).Ìý
'' inÌýTim Lindsey and Helen Pausacker (eds),ÌýCrime and Punishment in IndonesiaÌý(Routledge, 2021).
'' inÌýGreg Fealy and Ronit Ricci (eds),ÌýContentious Belonging: The Place of Minorities in IndonesiaÌý(ISEAS, 2019).
'' inÌýMelissa Crouch (ed),ÌýThe Politics of Courts and Judicial Change: Judicial Reform in Indonesia and the Legacy of Dan S LevÌý(Cambridge University Press, 2019).Ìý
Ìýin Anselmo Reyes and Weixia Gu (eds)ÌýThe Developing World of ArbitrationÌý(Hart, 2018).
'' inÌýEdward Aspinall, Marcus Mietzner, and Dirk Tomsa (eds),ÌýThe Yudhoyono Presidency: Indonesia’s Decade of Stability and StagnationÌý(ISEAS, 2015).
