Goenawan's case is a warning to everybody<\/p>\n
----------------------------------------------------------------
\nThe East Jakarta District Court on Monday issued an asset
\npreservation order covering the home of Tempo magazine co-founder
\nGoenawan Mohamad. This was followed by the issuance of a similar
\norder against the editorial offices of the Koran Tempo daily by
\nthe South Jakarta District Court. These measures were taken in
\nconnection with a suit filed by businessman Tomy Winata against
\nGoenawan for allegedly libeling him. Senior lawyer Luhut MP
\nPangaribuan talked to The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto. about the
\ncase.
\n----------------------------------------------------------------<\/p>\n
Question: How do you see the court's issuance of an asset
\npreservation order against Goenawan's house?<\/p>\n
Answer: This incident shows that the presiding judge took
\nalmost nothing into account before issuing his decision. The
\njudge accepted the application from the plaintiff for the order
\nwithout having regard to whether the legal grounds for the
\ndecision were strong enough or whether the action was really
\nnecessary. The judge also failed to take the possible
\nimplications of the seizure into consideration.<\/p>\n
It's rare for a court to slap an asset preservation order on
\nthe property of a defendant in a libel case. How could this have
\nhappened in Goenawan's case?<\/p>\n
Our legal system allows an application for preventive action
\nto be taken so as to preserve assets in order that they may be
\nused later to pay damages should the plaintiff win. A preventive
\nseizure is intended to provide guarantees for the plaintiff
\nshould he win his case. The seizure is just the court's way of
\nensuring that the defendant will not attempt to disguise his
\nownership of the assets or dispose of them. Therefore, the court
\nattempts to guarantee that there will be enough assets to pay the
\ndamages that are awarded to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
However, libel is a gray area where the plaintiff and the
\ndefendant have no concrete contractual relations. It's not a
\nblack-and-white matter.<\/p>\n
Libel constitutes the committing of an illegal act by the
\ndefendant. In such cases the Supreme Court should have very clear
\nguidelines; the court must be extra cautious before deciding on
\nany seizure. The court needs concrete evidence regarding
\ncontractual relations between the defendant and the plaintiff
\nbefore issuing an asset preservation order. In Goenawan's case,
\nthe court clearly lacked sufficient evidence to support the
\nplaintiff's application.<\/p>\n
The court order was ostensibly issued on the grounds that the
\njudge was worried that Goenawan would flee or dispose of his
\nassets. Yet the judges dealing with big corruption cases have
\nnever issued such orders preventing the disposal of defendants'
\nassets. Your comments?<\/p>\n
I said earlier that the judge took virtually nothing into
\nconsideration before deciding to seize Goenawan's house. It was
\nobvious that the judge saw the (Goenawan) case as an ordinary
\ncase.<\/p>\n
There are strong indications that our judges make decisions
\nwithout mature consideration. The Supreme Court should take note
\nof this in its promotion examinations for judges. Judges with
\nnegative records should get negative grades. Goenawan's case
\nshows that (the judge) just treated it like a standard case.<\/p>\n
Isn't it more appropriate to use the Press Law to settle
\npress-related cases?<\/p>\n
That's the ideal. But we cannot avoid the use of other
\nlaws ... The point is that the court must be very careful.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has issued practice directions to the courts
\nthat concrete evidence is absolutely required in libel suits.
\nThere are two questions: the facts and the points of law
\ninvolved.<\/p>\n
Legal proceedings here often do not reflect the public's sense
\nof justice. Do you see this being reflected in the Goenawan case?<\/p>\n
The order the court issued was an interlocutory order, which
\nmeans it is not a final decision or verdict. Social and moral
\naspects have not yet been taken into consideration. That will
\ncome later with the verdict. The question is, however, was there
\nany concrete evidence, something that is absolutely required in a
\nlibel suit? In the absence of such evidence the judge should not
\nhave made such a controversial decision.<\/p>\n
I believe the (presiding) judge is not illiterate. He must
\nknow what Tempo magazine is and who Goenawan Mohamad is. Goenawan
\nis not just a journalist. He is one of our best writers, whose
\nworks have been quoted everywhere. Goenawan lives in the public
\ndomain. I wish the presiding judge were illiterate, so we could
\nforgive him.<\/p>\n
It is public knowledge that law enforcement here is a mess,
\nmainly due to corruption. What do you think?<\/p>\n
Absolutely right. Goenawan's case proves that the masters are
\nnot justice, morals, legal certainty, or even the chief justice.
\nThe masters are those who bribe the law enforcers. Such bribes
\nare often paid to individual law enforcers. In particular cases,
\na deal is entered into. A plaintiff may ask a law enforcer how
\nmuch it will cost to have a defendant's property confiscated.<\/p>\n
Does the issuance of this order set a bad precedent for future
\nlibel suits?<\/p>\n
I would say yes. But it is more of a warning to everybody, not
\nonly the press, to be more alert against the \"new masters\" who
\nhave the power to influence our law enforcers at will, at any
\ntime. Tempo magazine once reported on the \"magnificent nine\" who
\nare untouchable by the law in this country. Those who come up
\nagainst them will be crushed.<\/p>\n
So what should we do?<\/p>\n
We just need good leaders, not rulers. Rulers are usually
\ninvolved in bribery, but good leaders are free from such sins.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/goenawans-case-is-a-warning-to-everybody-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}