The celebration of Bhakti Adhyaksa on 22 July 2016 marked 56 years of tenure of Indonesian Attorney General. The celebration this year coincided with the two days after the announcement of the verdict of People Court of Justice which held on September 2015, and the report submission by National Commission on Human Rights on Simpang KAA case in 1999 to Attorney General. In the middle of the two momentums, The Attorney General Office of Indonesia was faced with the big issues which did not only challenge its professionalism, but also examined how its loyalty, perfection and wisdom (satya adi wicaksana) implemented in its judicial performance.
The resolution of the past gross human rights violation cases has become a test for the Attorney General Office of Indonesia commitment in implementing mandate of The 1945 Constitution as a manifestation of Constitutional State. However, the track record of solving the past human rights violation cases shows its bad performance in giving justice to the human rights violation victims. From all the case reports submitted by national commission on human rights, only the cases of Tanjung Priok 1984 and East Timor got the trial of Ad hoc Human Rights Court, as well as the cases of Abepura, Papua in Human Rights Court. Some of the cases that the investigation results has not been follow up by the Attorney General are; Tragedy of Trisakti, 1998 May Tragedy, Semanggi I and II, the disappearance of activist in 1998 – 1999, the 1965 – 1966event, and mysterious shooting in 1982 – 1985. This situation showed the failure of Attorney General Official of Indonesia in embracing the paradigm of transitional justice in solving the past human rights violation cases.
In the perspective of Institute of Policy research and Advocacy (ELSAM), the failure could be seen in two dimensions. First, the failure of Attorney General Office of Indonesia in maintaining transparency, accountability, impartiality and justice in the middle of social politic conjuncture. Second, the failure of Attorney General Office of Indonesia in implementing its duty and authority as a judicial institution in the context of self acknowledging the spirit of transitional justice. Attorney General does not optimize the authorities given by The Law No. 26 / 2006 about Human Rights Court to its institution, for example in terms of the arrest (Article 11 Paragraph 1), detention (Article 12 Paragraph 1), the establishment of ad hoc investigator of the society (Article 21), and the seriousness in managing prosecution material (Article 23) to the Human Rights Court.
At its 56 years of tenure, the Attorney General Office of Indonesia should immediately improve its institution in order to conduct the reformation for solving the past gross human rights violation cases. Based on that fact, ELSAM recommended;
- To urge the Attorney General Office of Indonesia to immediately take effective and strategic legal actions in solving the pas gross human rights violation cases by following up the investigation result that has been submitted by National Commission on Human Rights.
- To encourage Attorney General Office of Indonesia to prepare fair and restorative actions to the victims of the past gross human rights violation cases.
- To ensure the legal transparency and accountability as stated in the document of Attorney General Office of Indonesia vision – mission in every process of solving the past gross human rights violation cases.
- The President to instruct the Attorney General to take actions based on the mandate and authorities in order to resolve past human rights violation case fairly and with dignity, in accordance to political commitment in Nawacita.
Jakarta, 22 July 2016