Introduction to Law Mid-Semesters: Question No.7

Assalaamu’alaykum warahmatullaahi wabarakaatuh

Dear Students,

This was question no. 7 from your Introduction to Law Mid-Semester Exams which I contributed

Read the hypotetical case carefuly and answer the following question:

Mrs. Maudy Ayundia is a judge serving in the North-Jakarta District Court. Currently (2015) she is assigned to judge a corruption case, allegedly committed by Mr. Dude Ralino (former governor). Mrs. Ayundia was informed that there was a corruption case adjudicated in 2010 by the Sleman District Court, in which the offender was also a former governmer namely Mr. Susilo Budi. The judges on Mr. Budi’s case analyzed the UU Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 jo. UU Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Corruption Eradication Act).

Showing the case above, is it compulsory for Mrs. Ayundia to use the Corruption Eradication Act as it is used on Mr. Budi’s case? Give your argument!

Before anything else, I would like you to know that in the original text of the question that I submitted (before it was revised by someone else), Mrs Maudy Ayundia is originally Mrs. Trenggiling. Mr. Dude Ralino is originally Mr. Potato, Mr. Susilo Budi was originally Mr Banana, and the Judge in the 2010 case is Mr. Elephant.

I just thought that since it’s the last question so might as well make the lolz of it hahaha

ANSWER

The answer is that yes it is compulsory. However, I have told you that I am not interested in what your answer is. I am more interested in your reasoning how you achieved your answer.

Now the trick here is that you might think that this is merely a case law. Regarding case laws, we know that they are not binding in Indonesia. However, you must remember that the question is NOT whether or not Mrs Ayundia should use the 2010 case laws as binding source of law.

The question is whether or not Mrs. Ayundia should use the Corruption Eradication Act!

In the end, although the text of the question mentions a case law, in the end the center of the question is the Corruption Eradication Ac, which is a positive law. And as we know, positive laws are binding.

PS: I will accept and highly appreciate it if there are additional disclaimers saying “…if no new laws have been passed.”

At a glance, I saw a few mistakes that more than one students make:

First, some students think the question is about case law, and they say “Mrs. Ayundia does not have to follow the 2010 case law because Indonesia uses civil law system so case laws are not binding”. This is not an incorrect statement per se, because it is true. However, the question was never about whether case laws are binding.

Second, some students answer that Mrs Ayundia must follow the 2010 precedence “since the cases are similar so the judgment must be the same”. This is an incorrect answer because (a) judges in Indonesia do not have to follow case laws, although there is a tendency to follow Supreme Court rulings, and (b) there are too little information to conclude that the cases are really that similar. Just because both are corruption cases to former governors, there might be a million details that make the two cases different!

I will try to update the list of common mistakes after I correct your exam sheets. It will be the other lecturers who correct their questions first, and when they are done, only then will I be correcting your exam sheets. So, it might take some time.

But either ways, if you have further questions regarding Question No. 7, you can contact me anytime.

Good luck for the rest of your exams!