joomla templates
A+ R A-

News Events

SBY form team to allay 'mistrust'

E-mail Print PDF

Mustaqim Adamrah and Adianto P. Simamora
The Jakarta Post
Jakarta, November 3, 2009

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono set up а fact-finding team to review the case implicating two Ieаders of the Corruption Eradicаtion Commission (КРК) amid mounting public anger aсross the соuntry.

Team chairman Adnan Buyung Nasution said Monday the team was established in response to growing "mistrust" amongst people toward thе arrest of Chandra Hamzah and Bibit Samad Rianto who were dеtained last week by police.

"The team will work fоr two weeks starting Tuesday. [We] will facilitate if  the team needs more time [to complete its task]," Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Djoko Suyanto told a press.conference.

The team also includes former National Commission on Human Rights member Кusрагmопо Iгsап as deputy chairman and the President's special staffer on legal affairs Denny Indrayana as sесгеtaгy.

Thе team's members arе prominent human rights lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis, Paramadina University rector Anies Ваswеdап, Democratic Party executive Amir Syamsuddin, Islamic State University rector Коmarudin Hidayat and University of Indonesia law professor Hikmahanto Juwana.

Bibit and Chandra were declared suspects on Sept. 15 and detained on Oct, 29 for alleged power abuse and bribery.

Public speculation that the twо КРК officials were being criminalized was recently backed up by a widely-published transcript of voice recordings of plans by police and the Attorney General's Office to fabricate evidence framing the pair iп criminal cases.

Besides high-ranking police аnd AGO officials, thе recordings, set to be played before the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, also mention Yudhoyono.

Thе detention of thе KPK leaders has sparked outcry, as thousands of people in major cities across thе country took thе streets on Monday while more than 500,000 people signed up to a Facebook group in support of Chandra and Bibit as of Monday.

Although thе National Police headquarters officially rejected calls to dismiss National Police chief of detectives Comr. Gen. Susno Duadji, an officer often mentioned. in thе recordings, from his position by Monday evening, a source inside the headquarters confirmed the three-star general had been suspended.

"The generals' meeting suspended him tо allow the -fact-finding team to vеrifу thе case. With Susno being suspended there will bе nо conflict of interest," the officer said.

"Of course, [the recordings] will be pаrt of our task. The tеam will аlsо watch for and listen to the recordings, which will be raves a Constitutional Court hearing tomoггоw [Tuеsdау]," he said.

“But the independence of the team's members remains iп question since part of them are linked to President Yudhoyono,” Setara Institute executive director Hendardi said.

Prosperous Justice Party (PKB) legislator, Nasir Jamil, questioned the effectiveness of the team to reveal the mastermind of the сase due to its lасk of lеgitimасy.

Unity Development Party (PPP) legislator Ahmad Yani questioned the authority of the team.

Golkar also rejected the establishment of the team, saying involving outsiders to resolve a legal case between the КPK and the police had violated the principle of law forcemeat iп Indonesia.

An odyssey in defense of the press before judiciary

E-mail Print PDF

Jakarta Post, August 10'2009

It was about 5 p.m on April 16 when a journalist called me and informed me that the Supreme Court had, ruled in favor of Time magazine in the review of its decision in a case lodged by the Soeharto family. Time has fought this cause to the bitter end, and its odyssey in pursuit of justice finally yielded its due merits.

Here was the climax of Time's struggle that took 1O years since Soeharto launched his suit on July 2, 1999. To the media, I assert that this judgment is nothing but final.

The legal reasoning underlying the Supreme Court's decision is very simple indeed, i.e. that Time had afforded Soeharto’s  party the right to 'respond, which was, published in the magazine's May 24, 1999 edition. Furthermore, it was found, the Time report in question did not breach applicable codes of ethics for journalism. These two reasons paralyzed the charges that Time failed to corn-ply with Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code.

Suffice it to say the judgment has managed to establish the legal edifice that as far as the press is concerned, the applicable legal regime is Chiefly the Press Law and the jour-realism code of ethics. The present judgment has come. in line with the Supreme Court Circular issued earlier this year, by Chief Supreme Court Justice Harifin'Tumpa, which in essence states that press cases must be considered and judged in the context of the Press Law.
In reflecting on the journey of the case, it may be useful to take a look back at, the Central Jakarta District Court's May 31, 2000 decision. The decision was in favor of Time, rejecting entirely Soeharto’s charges against the magazine. There were many interesting legal outcomes of the court's ruling. It can be concluded from its decision that so long as a,report by the press does not have malicious intent or "reckless disregard for the subject it does not qualify as defamation.The Jakarta High Court affirmed the Central Jakarta District Court's decision by upholding all of the District Court's legal considerations, after which Soeharto submitted a final appeal to the Supreme Court. And here the case. lay dormant for about six years. We do not know what happened, except to say that one day in 2007 the Supreme Court made a decision that rescinded the decisions made by the Jakarta High and Central Jakarta District Courts.

The Supreme Justices serving on the bench of the final appeal, presided over by Associate Supreme Justice German Hudiarto, concluded that Time had defamed Soeharto in the magazine's report entitled "Soeharto Inc.: How Indonesia's Long-time Boss Built a Family. Fortune". Time; was ordered to place apologetic statement in various local and foreign media outlets and pay Rp 1 trillion (US$ 100 million) in damages.

The campaign culminated in our submission of Time's application for an official review of the judgment to the Supreme Court. In the application's brief we argued that the Supreme Court's judgment was manifestly erroneous.

We contended that the Supreme Court bench had failed to appreciate that press cases must be considered and judged with regards to the Press Law. We repeated quite a number of our arguments at the Central Jakarta District Court and went further by inserting the latest developments in democracy and the international legal environment concerning the press.

Owing to the review of the judgment, the Supreme Court will, go awn in history as, one that re-af firms our nation's commitment to freedom of the press: It leaves us with no; doubt to say that, simple though it maybe, the judgment will be recorded in the history of, the press, not only Indonesia's but also the world's, with golden ink.

It is certainly proper for us to thank the Supreme Court, which has restored our nation's repute before the international community by virtue of this enlightened judgment appears that at the end of the tunnel, there is a candle guiding our way forward.

The writer is Time’s Attorney at Law in Indonesia

Fighting the 'Judicial Mafia'

E-mail Print PDF

VOL.XII No.13-14 Dec 22,2009

On November 23, President Yudhoyono gave a televised address regardinghis derision on the Team 8 recommendations, which, though deliberately ambiguous, signalled to the Police and the Attorney General's Ojсe that the case against КPК deputies Chandra M. Hamzah and Bibit Samad Rianto was too weak to pursue. On the December 3, Thе Executive Network (TEN) brought together a panel of experts to address the issues raised by the casе, including what could be done to fight what has come to be called the judicial mafia,'and what institutional reforms need to be undertaken to see to the survival of the KPK


Еrrу Riyana Hardjapamekas - Former KPK Deputy

I will begin my saying that the judicial mafia is only one of many mafias in Jakarta and Indonesia. Thеге's  also the timber mafia, oil апd gas mafia, mining mafia, land mafia: all sorts of mafias.

The talk of the judicial mafia began with the playing back of a wiretapped telephone conversation at the Constitutional Court, which was an historic event. That [recorded conversation] was the tip of the iceberg. We knew that the judicial mafia was there and operating in very conducive conditions but thаt showed us the extent.

Based on the recommendation of Team 8, the president is trying to solve the problem of the mafia by forming a task force. Our SBY [Susilo Bаmbапg Yudhoyono] likes to form teams. Maybe Later His Excellency Dillon will head one of those teams on the eradication of the Poverty mafia.

What Pak Kuntoro did after he got thе assignment to deal with the judicial mafia is what I would like to share with you. For him, the first step is mapping the modus operandi of the mafia working with thе police and the Attorney General's Office [AGO], and also with the KPK but not nearly to the extent as with the AGO, and I'm not just saying that because I am a former member of the KPK.

Number twо, thеrе must bе some shock therapy [removal of individuals involved in corruption].

Number three, the problem in Indonesia is that the Law is pretty good but that the law enforcement agencies are not good. There is the view that bad Laws with good law enforcement agencies is better than good laws with bad law enforcement. Iп Indonesia, both are pretty bad. The system of laws needs to bе harmonized because there are lots of conflicting laws and that is one of the steps that Pak Kuntoro is trying to take.

The kеу words of this endeavour are transparency and accountability. That is what we lack. We need tо review the blueprint for legal reform and for bureaucracy reform. As you mаy be aware, two years or more ago, SBY declared that bureaucracy reform was a must. Bureaucracy reform must be started in the law enforcement agencies, beginning with the Supreme Court, the AGO, the police and then the military.

That's only for the lаw enforcement sector. The other sectors, like those under Sri Mulyani: tax, customs аnd excise and all financial sectors, are more progressive than the law enforcement and judicial sector. So systems-wise, the judicial mafia has to be eradicated through bureaucracy reform of the Supreme Court, the AGO, and the Police. The military must follow in order to prevent it from becoming a part of the mafia.

So that in brief is what Pak Kuntoro is trying to do as a follow up to his assignment to eradicate thе judicial mafia.


Toduпg Mulya Lubis
Lubis, Santosa & Maulana; Member of Team 8

I have been practicing law for more than thirty years and since that time there has been talk of advokat hitam оr `Ыасk Lawyers: This is the term used by people referring to the legal mafia. When I attended that meeting at Pak Kuntoro's оffiсе a couple weeks ago, quite a lоt of attended that meeting including pеорlе frот thе police and from the Attorney General's Office, thе Supreme Court, thе Judicial Commissions, the commission to protect witnesses and victims of crimes, and I represented the lawyer's community in that meeting. What I did not gather from that meeting was a clear concept of how to fight the mafia.

In every agency and institution, there is a code of соnduсt, a cоdе of ethic; there is some kind of internal mес anisms tо supervise and control the employees. But leaving it to internal mechanisms of the agency, like the Supreme Court, thе AGO, or the Police, we all know that nothing has been done and the mafia is still there. In fact, when we listen to the conversations between Anggodo [Widjojo] and members of the police and prosecutors, we realize how badly damaged thе legal environment is in Indonesia at the moment.

So I agree with Рak Erry that shock therapy should be undertaken. I told Pak Kuntoro that unless you arrest and punish one judge, one prosecutor, one police officer, and оne lawyer every month, then the task force against the mafia would not lead to anything in our lifetime. Its that kind of shock therapy that needs to be undertaken bу this task fогсе if they hope to bе successful in fighting this mafia.

Of course, this mafia is not just thе judges or thе lawyers. The journalists and businessmen arе also playing а part in this mafia. Anggodo's а businessman who has an enormous network of contacts iп the judiciary. If thе police fail to get Anggodo, then I myself have no confidence in this task fоrce because he should be immediate target of this task force if they want to succeed.

I'm not saying there hasn't been anу improvement in our legal institutions and Law enforcement in the Last five or six years. There have been some improvements. But what happened with KPK shows that despite thе improvements that have taken place in KРK, the police, and thе judiciary, they are have all been faced with an opposition who wants to weaken these institutions. Members of civil society and anti-corruption activists coined the phrase: `corruptors fight hack: The corruptors are trying to do everything possible to weaken the KPK. The case of Chandra and Bibit is the last attempt by them to weaken thе KPK. Prior to the case against Chandra and Bibit, we also had the law on КРК and the new draft bill passed by parliament to weaken the anti coruption court. These instances are the worst of what we call thе corruptors fight back' phenomenon in Indonesia.

If I were to ask, will we have more certainty in law enforcement, in fighting corruption in the futurе? It rеmains to be seen whether we have a clear signal or evidence that the government is really serious about reforming and strengthening the agencies. President SBY keeps saying that he's for the anti-corruption fight. He says that's there no organized attempt to weaken the КРК. But the fact that there is the case against Chandra and Bibit аnd it goеs on for this amount of time, thе fact that the police has been very much involved in all this weakening process, this shows us that, even within thе cепtral authority, there are agendas other than strengthening the КРК, because, like it or not, the КРК will go after those people.

With the strong civil society we have and a media that is very free, I think the КРК and the anti-corruption drive can build up momentum against people who are working against the КРК. It rетains tо be seen if this will work and the tension is certainly there between the роwег-holders, and the civil society апд the КPК on the other hand.

Now we have the Bank Century case and I think this is the new game iп town. Bank Century is the new hot topic and I don't know what the КРК can do in this case. Thеу can attempt to investigate the matters while at the same time there will be the investigation by the parliament, by the committee that will be formed in the next couple days.

This is something we have to closely watch because there’ve been so many competing interests within the parliament. I'm not saying thеу would be taken outside of are just going aftег SBY but I'm not ruling out any possibilities at the moment; it can gо anywhere. This is a very unpredictable time and who knows if after Bank Century there will be another case, another investigation.

I feel sorry for SBY thаt he did not have nice honeymoon with his voters who gave him a very strong mandate. I was hoping in his seсоnd term that he would more tough and more fiгm, but we don't have that, and are not going to have thаt. We have the sense that he Hatta was named as one of potential not really ready to dеаl with this maneuvering by all the competing interests.


Hikmahanto Juwana
Professor at the Faculty of Law,
University of Indonesia; Member of Team 8

Thе recent issues between the КРК and the police have made history in Indonesia because for many years in Indonesia, law has been marginalized by our leaders аnd bу our elites. For example in the Sukarno era, President Sukarno said, we don't need lawyers bесаusе how can you have lawyers and have a evolution. Lawyers only talk about the constitution and legality. This was case when President Suharto was in power. He asked, how can you have development, economic development, how can you have law? Because at that time leaders and elites thought that law was an impediment to progress.

This is why the young generation in Indonesia have traditionally stayed away from studying law. I admit as a former dean of the faculty of law, that in the 1970-90s, those who studied law did so because thеу didn't have any choice - because they weren't accepted at medical school. Of course, there are exceptions.

Of those who do study law, the problem is that the goоd ones tend tо stay away from public legal institutions like the AGO because if they become prosecutors, they Would be taken outside of Jakarta or other urban areas. Fоr those people who are very bright, they think: if I'm going to be put away, then. I will be become worse because the cases are not challenging. I've been tоld thаt thеy play cards and wаit in the hope that they will be moved tо big cities.

So Looking at this situation, I would say that we should not only lооk tо legislation and tо building new institutions to solve the problem, wе must also look to human resources in the legal system.

This trend of not wanting tо study law began changing in the 1990s probably because cases were televised and the young generation saw the lawyers arriving in foreign cars like Mercedes-Benz and the parents asked why they don't study law. Thе question is: How are you going to push these young pеорlе so that they want to become judges and prosecutors?

The way I look at the situation, if the bright ones will go to the private sector and the mediocre ones will gо to the public legal institutions, thеn we will have corruption on our hands. On the one hand, the private sector has money but on the other, the public sector has power.

One of the recommendations of Team 8 to the president was to not only fight the judicial mafia, but to also go after the legal mafia. Thе task force has been instituted and the question is what are the terms of reference for this task fоrсе. I'm not sure if it is still up in the air; we have not heard from Pak Кuntoro. I will propose some of the terms of reference that could bе accommodated:


1. We need to define what we mean by 'legal mafia:

2. Who are the actors of this 'legal mafia'? Is it the legal profesionals: lawyers, judges, prosecutors or clerks, or is it non-legal professional like jurnalists and businessmen and women.

3. How are we to fight this legal mafia? There are preventive measures and there are repressive measures.

4. How can we sustain the effort? Fighting the lеgаl mafia will not take only 100 days, not only twо years.

5. Will the task fоrсе have special authority? Please do bear in mind that when we say `fight against the mafia,' we do mean the mafia. In Indonesia, we are currently fighting against terrorism and corruption. In fighting corruption and terrorism, the bodies charged аrе given special authority. Thе question is, will this task force bе given special authority? Or, is it going tо be a coordinating body that has nо feet?

6. Lastly, аnd this is my recommendation, we need to improve the wеLrе of the personnel in the public legal institutions, not only for those who аrе currently working at the pubic institutions, but also to attract the younger generation to become judges, prosecutors or police officers.

These are the kinds of terms of reference that I would like to hear and see from the task force.

The second issue before us today is the case of Bank Century. There are a lot of things going on in Indonesia today. I have tried to identify the Legal issues in the case of Bank Century:

1. Was the bailout policy in contradiction of any laws? As the DPR begins its angket [inquiry], it will ask the government this question.

2. Did the bailout policy save Indопеsiа's bank industry from collapse? Or, as is the suspicion of many in civil society and the pubic, were the bailout funds used for other purposes, meaning that the bailout policy was a means of getting money. Investigation by the КРК, the police, or by the prosecutors' office will be involved in thаt question bесаusе of the possibility of corruption.

3. Thirdlу, there is the legal issue of PPATK [Financial Transactions Reporting and Analysis Center] disclosing where the money is coming from. The legal issue is whether PPATK сап disclose this to a non-legal institution, for example to the DPR. Thе heаd of the PPATK, Yunus Husein, has asked for solid Legal ground so that they can disclose it. They need to disclose that information because of the suspicion from the public. In order to vet whether this suspicion is true they need to have the information from the PPATK because the information for BPK might not be sufficient.

4. With the respect to the NGOs, like Benders, who are facing a defamation case for having  described their version of the money going to certain parties and individuals. The legal question is whether they have valid information.

5. Thе fifth legal question is crimes committed b~ the old shell owners аnd management of Bank Century, including those who have fled. How do we get the assets of those people whо are now  outside of Indonesia.

6. Thе sixth issue is the Bank Century customers who were mislead in buying the capital market instruments: those who were not aware that this kind of instrument is not guaranteed by the  government. How will justice be done for the people who said theу were misled by Robert Tаtulаr аnd Bank Century.

7. Next issue is Рak Buda Samроегnas money. You have probably heard that Budi Sampoerna put a lot of money into Bank Century. Thе question is whether he took out that money.

8. Last issue is the wiretapping the conversations between Pak Budi  Sаmроегna's lawyers апd the former chief of detectives.

Looking at the Bank Century case, there аге a lot of legal issues. You cannot deal with just one and hоре that rest will be okay. Thе public needs to be patient because these sorts of issues take time.

Corruption Court Law, heavily regulated anti corruption portion

E-mail Print PDF

Irawaty Wardany

Jakarta, Monday, October 5,2009

The House Representatives has just passed the Corruption Court Law last week, many people considered its substances not to be in line with the spirit of corruption eradication. The Jakarta Post's Irawaty Wardany talked to senior lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis, who is also known as an anti corruption activist about this. Here are the excerpts.

What do you think of the newly enacted Corruption Court Law? Has it accommodated the spirit of corruption eradication efforts?

On the surface we can see that the spirit is still strong but we also see that there were various cooption moves regarding the Corruption Court including the plan to reduce the number of ad hoc judges in the panel of judges handling cases. Usually the ad hoc judges are the majority in the panel.That is the first issue.

Secondly, so far the corruption court is located in Jakarta only, but it will now be established in 33 provincial capitals and I heard the Supreme Court will start with establishing seven more corruption courts depending on the budget.

At some point I see that the government is trying to decentralize the fight against corruption courts but on the other hand this will cause unintended consequences such as weakening monitoring of the corruption courts, because instead of having one in Jakarta that has so far been closely watched by the civil society and by the media, now we have to diversify them to other regions that probably do not have civil societies that are as vocal, outspoken and active or free nor such independent media. These moves may unintentionally weaken anti-graft processes following the diversification of corruption courts.

Thirdly, preparation to train and to improve the skills of booth career and ad hoc corruption court judges will take time. Relatively speaking we are more geared to the current condition where the Corruption Court is located in Jakarta. Preparing career and ad hoc judges foe seven Courts, and later on for 26 other courts, will take time because it will not be easy to find judges who really have the commitment to learn about legal precedents and jurisprudence of corruption courtsd in both domestic and foreign countries. 

It will also not easy to provide the needed budget from the state. It must wait for the approval of the Finance Ministry and the House of Representatives.

Fourthly, the corruption court will be subordinated to the district court because it is (structurally) under (the authority) of district courts, whereas the initial idea was that the corruption court was part of the districtcourt system but not subordinate to district courts.

I'm afraid anither unintended result of the new Corruption Court Law is that the district court chief will feel that he or she is the one who has the authority over the corruption courts.

So there is a kind of different basis here. This all indicates potential to weaken the Corruption Courts. Part of it probably by design and the rest is the unintended results or unintended consequences of diversification of the corruption courts.

So you're saying this law has more downsides than advantages?

Well...this law is part of political compromise. We have tried our best to maintain exsistence of the Corruption Court and its composition (of judges) because it is easier to monitor and improve  the quality of the court in Jakarta rather than to monitor many corruption courts. 

It doesn't mean that we do not want to eradicate corruption in the regions but so far corruption cases that took place in teh regions such as Papua, Banyuasin, Pelalawan, Medan are all tried in Jakarta. They are what we call the big fish, but now they are going to be tried in their own regions in circumstances where the corruption will not be ready, and where human resources have yet to be come proffesional. So the quality of corruption court rullings [in these circimatances] has yet to be guaranteed [to be fair].

I don't want to be pessimistic but a question remains now on whether the quality of regional corruption courts will have some quality as that of the jakarta court.

The Corruption Court Law only orders to diversify the court, whereas the KPK remains centralized. How do you see this?

I think the government is a bit ambiguous. KPK is supposed to have regional brances but the government has yet to approve this. So corruption cases in regions will still be habdled by the prosecutors offices.

Well...we never expected it to be like this. The initial idea was the corruption court remain in Jakarta while we are going after the big fishes but with the establisment of corruption courts in every province, we need to have regional KPK as well.

If not, the process could be blocked and in the end the prosecution process would be handled back by the AGO's prosecutors.

If that is what happens, are the prosecutors tough enough to handle corruption cases? If the prosecutors were to be taken from (KPK) Jakarta, do we have enough to handle cases in seven regions?

So there will be problems to face in the field and that will also hamper the government's target to eradicate corruption.

About the judge's composition that you have mentioned earlier, the law says it will be regulated later by the Supreme Justice's decree. How significant is the composition of the judges in affecting corruption eradication efforts?

I still believe that if the number of career judges were to be more than the number of ad hoc ones, then the quality of the rulings will not be fully in line with the spirit of corruption eradication, based on experiences so far. This is also one of my concerns.

Seeing the substance of the new Corruption Court Law and the current situation with the KPK, do you think this a reflection of the decreasing commitment by the government on corruption eradication?

I don't want to say it is decreasing but I get the impression that the government, the lawmakers and Supreme Court are afraid and concerned with current corruption eradication efforts because it can take them down. Therefore they formulate rules that make the fight against corruption less aggressive.

This is what I call the heavily regulated anti corruption portion. The commitment is strong enough but they do not want to give freedom and authority to both the KPK and the Coruption Court.

I think the instinct of the authorites will always be like this. In normal circumstances it is all right to reduce the authority of the KPK and corruption court, but we are not in normal conditions yet. Corruption is really systemic here so therefore we must make extraordinary efforts to end it.

When we have reached conditions similiar to Singapore, New Zealand and Scandinavian countries where corrupt practices are really low then I will agree with the heavily regulated anti corruption portion. But we have yet to reach that level, so we must be aggresive. 

Do you think the government's plan to choose KPK interim leaders is also part of the efforts to weaken anti corruption moves?

I'm afraid so. It is as if there is some kind of hidden agenda. I happen to be member of the selection team and we did our best to recommend good names that would help meet public worries about the posibility of intereference in the KPK.

Nominations submitted for KPK chiefs

E-mail Print PDF

Jakarta, Monday, September, 28,2009

The team of five, which was specially appointed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to select three interim leaders at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), has received five candidate names in a closed envelope from law experts, a team member said.

"The names were submitted by a member of law organizations, such as the Indonesian Attorney Union [PJI] and the National Police Commission [Kompolnas], during our meeting with them," team member Todung Mulya Lubis told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.

"During the meeting, there were differences on the urgency of the president's regulation-in-lieu of law on the KPK's leadership, but in the end, everyone agreed that the antigraft body needed to be saved."

Todung was referring to a regulation issued by Yudhoyono aiming to appoint individuals to serve as interim leaders at the KPK.

The KPK has lost three - Antasari Azhar, Chandra Hamzah, and Bibit Samad Riyanto - out of its five leaders after the police charged them with criminal conduct, including masterminding a murder, abuse of power and receiving bribery.

Yudhoyono saw that the KPK was in an emergency situation and needed to be saved by issuing a regulation to fill the slots, however,anticorruption activists claimed the president had tainted and jeopardized the independency of the KPK with his action.

The remaining KPK leaders M Jasin and Haryono Umar initially rejected the regulation, but they changed their minds after they met the President's team.

During that meeting, Jasin and Umar said that they could understand the President's reasons but they also wanted the interim leaders to be those who had sifficient capability and were ready to work starting from day one.

The team has so far agreed on three basic reqruitments for selection of candidates.

Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Widodo A.S., another member of the team, said that the most important criteria was the ability to adjust to the culture of the KPK and coordinate with the remaining deputies.

Todung said that more or less of the same criteria were also requested by the organizations the team met during Saturday's meeting.

"They want us to name people who are profesionals in the fields of law, such as attorneys, advocates and policement.

"They also asked for a guarantee that the selected interim leaders would be able to do their jobs peacefully without having to worry about being criminalized."

Todung said that the team would make the final decesion before Sept. 1. "I also hope that president will have the wisdom to accept our decesion. He appointed us as the selection team, therfore he should not reject our recommendation."

Another team member Adnan Buyung Nasution said as quoted by detik.com that he would quit from his job as one of the President's advisory board members should Yudhoyono reject the team's recommendation.

"The president has given us his mandate and trust. Ethically speaking, he must accept our recommendation.

"We cannot force him to agree with our decesion, however, I have a stance of my own." (hdt)

Page 14 of 15