Talking with several experts and activists these past few weeks, it's clear that many are disappointed in the corruption scandal involving former Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) chief justice Akil Mochtar. Many are also disappointed that the court has not taken more aggressive measures to establish an independent ethics committee.
However, on Thursday (coincidentally, two days after I'd visited the MK library), public expressions of discontent with the MK reached a new phase as supporters of a party in a Maluku local election dispute stormed the MK building. According to The Jakarta Post, several shouted "the MK is a thief" because their favored candidate lost.
Increasingly, I hear people raising questions about the appropriate role for the MK in deciding local elections disputes. Most people I've met still think the MK will provide the fairest adjudication of cases, but it's far from clear if retaining jurisdiction over the cases is good for the MK. Many seem to think that whichever institution is tasked with deciding these disputes will suffer, either from corruption, an overflowing docket, or popular anger. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions and there seems to be little appetite for the large-scale institutional reform that would be necessary to create a separate court for local elections disputes.
Critics agree that much of Southeast Asia desperately needs judicial reform and rule of law. Yet, there is remarkably little comparative scholarship on law and legal institutions in the region. In this blog, I'll follow constitutional developments in Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, as well as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
No comments:
Post a Comment