Legal wrangling set to continue<\/p>\n
By T. Sima Gunawan<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Legal problems related to the June 1993 banning
\nof Tempo weekly continue to linger.<\/p>\n
Five separate lawsuits were filed in connection to the
\ngovernment's decision to ban the popular magazine. None have been
\nsettled.<\/p>\n
On May 3, 1995, the Jakarta State Administrative Court, which
\nhandled two lawsuits on the revocation of Tempo's publishing
\nlicense, ruled in favor of the magazine's former chief editor,
\nGoenawan Mohamad, and its former staff members. Court chief
\nBenjamin Mangkoedilaga said that Minister of Information
\nHarmoko's decision based on decree No.01\/1984 on the revocation
\nof publishing licenses contradicted the higher Press Law.
\nTherefore, the court ordered Harmoko to reissue the license.<\/p>\n
The Press Law No. 21\/1982 does not allow the banning of
\nnational mass media.<\/p>\n
The case, however, is not over as Harmoko stated he will
\nappeal the decision in the State Administrative High Court.<\/p>\n
Five days after the administrative court reached the verdict,
\nthe Central Jakarta District Court turned down the Rp 936 million
\ndamage claim filed by 39 former Tempo employees. Presiding judge
\nLeo Hutagalung said that the case was out of the court's
\njurisdiction. He argued that the case should be heard by an
\nadministrative court because it was caused by a ministerial
\ndecree.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff's defense team stated immediately after the
\ndecision that they would appeal.<\/p>\n
Two other lawsuits were filed against the minister of
\ninformation regarding his controversial decree revoking the
\npublishing licenses.<\/p>\n
As many as 121 Indonesian journalists and 972 people who are
\nagainst the bannings of Tempo, DeTik and Editor, urged the
\nSupreme Court to review the decree.<\/p>\n
They took the class actions on the grounds that the Supreme
\nCourt has the authority to examine government regulations that
\nare considered inappropriate.<\/p>\n
Both suits were registered with the Central Jakarta District
\nCourt on Nov. 11, 1994.<\/p>\n
The first judicial review case in Indonesian press history was
\nbrought forward in 1992 by Surya Paloh, owner of the Prioritas
\ndaily which was banned in 1987. He asked the court to review
\nHarmoko's decree No.01\/1984, which was used by the government to
\njustify the newspaper's closing.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case in June 1993,
\nbecause they said the suit wasn't filed properly. The court only
\nthen issued regulation No.1\/1993 on the filing procedures for
\njudicial review suits.<\/p>\n
Even though Surya Paloh could re-file his suit, he decided not
\nto continue the legal battle. What was more important was to
\nsimplify the procedures to get a publishing license, Paloh said
\nduring an interview with Matra monthly magazine last April.<\/p>\n
Tempo's judicial review suits were the first to arise after
\nthe Supreme Court issued regulation No.1\/1993 on judicial review
\nsuits.<\/p>\n
The Central Jakarta District Court, which apparently didn't
\nunderstand the judicial review procedures, summoned the
\nplaintiffs on Nov. 23, according to one of the plaintiffs'
\nlawyers, Rita Serena Kolibonso.<\/p>\n
\"They later corrected the mistake through another letter dated
\nDec. 2,\" she said.<\/p>\n
Rita, a lawyer of the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, clarified
\nthat only the Supreme Court, not the district court, has the
\nauthority to summon both plaintiffs and defendants if necessary.<\/p>\n
Considering the importance of the case, she called on the
\nSupreme Court to hold a public hearing, even though there was no
\nobligation for the court to do so.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has only contacted the plaintiffs' lawyers
\nonce, on Feb. 20, when the court sent the lawyers a letter
\nacknowledging that it had received their law suit files and
\nHarmoko's response.<\/p>\n
\"We have not received any more information about the case
\nsince,\" Rita said.<\/p>\n
Harmoko was represented by 11 lawyers from the legal bureau of
\nthe Ministry of Information and the Attorney General's Office.
\nThe lawyers argued that decree No.01\/1984 didn't contradict the
\nPress Law No.4\/1982. The law states that there shouldn't be any
\nbanning or censorship of the national press. According to
\nHarmoko's lawyers, revoking a business license was different from
\nbanning a magazine or censoring it.<\/p>\n
The Jakarta State Administrative Court has stated that the
\ndecree contradicts the press law, but the Supreme Court, of
\ncourse, has the final say. Whatever the ruling, it will be a
\nmilestone in the history of both the Indonesian press and
\njudiciary.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/legal-wrangling-set-to-continue-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}