Lawyers have to remain professional<\/p>\n
Little progress has been made in the police's attempt to find
\nHutomo \"Tommy\" Mandala Putra, son of former president Soeharto,
\nwhile more controversy has arisen with the questioning of Tommy's
\nlawyer for allegedly misleading the police. The following is an
\nexcerpt from an interview with noted lawyer Nursyahbani
\nKatjasungkana.<\/p>\n
Question: Could you comment on the questioning of lawyer Juan
\nFelix Tampubolon in regard to information he gave police
\nconcerning the underground bunker at Tommy's home?<\/p>\n
Answer: Anyone has the potential to violate the law. (But)
\nthere needs to be some criteria to declare that someone has
\nviolated a ruling. In the case of Juan Felix, all lawyers will
\ntry to do their best to defend their clients because their
\nclients pay them to do so.<\/p>\n
But the way lawyers handle a case has something to do with
\nprofessionalism and ethics. There are rules to obey.<\/p>\n
Lawyers must not tell lies about their clients, but this also
\ndepends on the condition that their clients do not lie to them.<\/p>\n
When lawyers do not know something about their clients because
\ntheir clients have not told them, nobody can force the lawyers to
\nsay something.<\/p>\n
Q: How do you see the role of the lawyers in Tommy's case?<\/p>\n
A: We have to know the duties of lawyers or legal advisors.
\nAs advisors they have to advise clients to obey the law.
\nTherefore it is not right if a lawyer advises a client, for
\ninstance, to flee.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, there must be professional distance between
\nlawyers and their clients. I don't see such professionalism
\nbetween Tommy or the Soeharto family and the lawyers.<\/p>\n
In the case of Tommy, it was not quite right when one of
\nTommy's lawyers said that he knew where Tommy was but that his
\nclient refused to go to jail because there was no guarantee for
\nhis safety.<\/p>\n
At that time, however, Tommy and his lawyers might have been
\nconfused whether to request a review of his case or file an
\nappeal for clemency from the President. Because both actions are
\nvery different. Requesting a review means he must go to jail
\nfirst. Filing an appeal for clemency would mean an admittance of
\nguilt.<\/p>\n
But by protecting Tommy at that time, it was obvious that the
\nlawyers were attempting to halt the execution (of arrest).<\/p>\n
How do you see the contribution of the poor judiciary system
\nto developments of this case?<\/p>\n
Once, I learned about a verdict from the media even before it
\nwas made known (to my client). Regardless of pressure from any
\nparty, I know the prosecutor's office is too slow in anticipating
\nany possibilities, so that's why Tommy could escape.<\/p>\n
Q: What impacts does this case have on lawyers?<\/p>\n
A: There are positive and negative impacts.<\/p>\n
The positive impact is that legal advisors must learn from
\nthis case in that they must always work professionally and
\nproportionally. Second, legal advisors should also learn how to
\nhandle cases loaded with political nuances.<\/p>\n
The negative impact is that the police may easily accuse
\nlawyers for hiding something when in fact lawyers are not lying.<\/p>\n
Q: With respect to the interrogation of Juan Felix, do you think
\nhe can be named a suspect?<\/p>\n
A: As I said, everyone has the potential to violate the law. But
\nin his case there should be solid evidence. I don't think the
\npolice can use Article 216 of the Criminal Code, which they
\ninvoked to interrogate Juan Felix, because the article refers to
\nthe main suspect, in this case, Tommy, and not Juan.<\/p>\n
It is likely that (Juan Felix) really did not have any idea
\n(about the bunker). This means that there should first be
\nevidence to prove that he told lies, or whether it was his client
\nwho provided him with misleading information.<\/p>\n
Q: Have you ever experienced clients providing you with
\nmisleading information?<\/p>\n
A: In the mid 1980s I was legal advisor for a man accused of
\nrobbery. I later learned that it was a hoax. I withdrew from the
\ncase immediately when I found out he was lying.<\/p>\n
The then chairman of the Honor Council for Ethics in the Legal
\nProfession and the Indonesian Bar Association (Ikadin) vehemently
\nrebuked me because it is not ethical to abandon clients during
\ncourt hearings.<\/p>\n
But I decided to quit the case. I could not defend someone who
\nhad told me lies. My client could have complained about my
\nresignation to the council, but he did not. (I. Christianto)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lawyers-have-to-remain-professional-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}