Mochtar says court ruling on unionist illegal<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, a former cabinet minister
\nand respected legal expert, deeply regrets the Supreme Court's
\nrecent decision to send a labor activist back to prison after it
\nexonerated him last year.<\/p>\n
Speaking to journalists during a break in a workshop on
\nnational law development here yesterday, Mochtar said the ruling
\nwas \"against the law.\"<\/p>\n
\"The Supreme Court shouldn't have accepted the request for the
\ntrial review because it's against the law,\" said Mochtar, former
\nforeign minister and professor of law at the Padjadjaran
\nUniversity in Bandung, West Java.<\/p>\n
The Oct. 25 decision of the Supreme Court that labor leader
\nMuchtar Pakpahan should go back to prison and complete the
\nremainder of his four-year prison term, overruled an earlier
\nruling quashing all charges.<\/p>\n
The ruling was made after the court reviewed the case based on
\na request from the North Sumatra provincial prosecutors office.<\/p>\n
Pakpahan was first found guilty of inciting a 1994 labor riot
\nin Medan, North Sumatra, and was sentenced by the Medan district
\ncourt to three-years imprisonment. A high court rejected his
\nappeal and increased his sentence to four-years in jail.<\/p>\n
He was exonerated in September 1995 by a panel of Supreme
\nCourt justices led by Deputy Chief Justice for General Crimes Adi
\nAndojo Soetjipto.<\/p>\n
Another panel led by former chief justice Soerjono, however,
\nreviewed the case, annulled Adi's ruling and ordered that
\nPakpahan complete the original sentence.<\/p>\n
Pakpahan, leader of the unrecognized Indonesian Prosperous
\nLabor Union, is now under detention at the Attorney General's
\noffice for allegedly inciting the Jakarta July 27 riots in which
\nfive people were killed.<\/p>\n
Soerjono's ruling sparked controversy, not only because the
\nman was thought to have a poor relationship with Justice Adi, but
\nalso because the Criminal Code Procedure does not have provisions
\nfor trial reviews based on prosecutors' requests.<\/p>\n
Minister of Justice Oetojo Oesman argued yesterday that
\nprosecutors could request a trial review precisely because the
\nlaws do not prohibit it.<\/p>\n
Just because the law says that those who \"can\" file a request
\nfor a trial review are the defendants or their beneficiaries,
\ndoes not mean that prosecutors are prohibited from doing it,
\nOetojo said.<\/p>\n
\"It would be different, of course, if the law used the word
\n'only' instead of 'can' in its stipulation,\" said Oetojo.<\/p>\n
The law actually says that a trial review can be requested
\nproviding it was not of a court decision that has freed a
\ndefendant.<\/p>\n
Oetojo then said: \"It's up to the justice to interpret what
\n'freed' means.\"<\/p>\n
To suggestions that freedom should be an inalienable right for
\na defendant once he or she is declared free from all charges,
\nOetojo said: \"We should also be aware that the law was made not
\nonly for the protection of individuals but also for the whole
\nsociety.\"<\/p>\n
\"Suppose a dangerous person, acquitted by a court, walks free
\nin society. If the law allows the prosecutor to make a final
\nlegal effort, the chance should be taken,\" he said.<\/p>\n
The minister did not say who he meant by a \"dangerous person.\"<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court's last ruling on Pakpahan was the first in
\nIndonesian legal history because the request for a trial review
\nwas made by prosecutors.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights
\nAssociation said yesterday the Supreme Court's decision puts the
\nnation's ideal of justice even farther out of reach.<\/p>\n
At issue is Article 263 of the Criminal Code Procedures which
\nsays that a trial review can be requested from the Supreme Court
\nby a defendant or his beneficiaries. There's no provision
\nenabling any party to request a trial review if the defendant is
\nruled free by the court.<\/p>\n
\"The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 263 .. has gone
\ntoo far and...fatal for the current criminal legal system we are
\nmeant to uphold,\" the association said.<\/p>\n
\"The interpretation, supposed to be a 'legal breakthrough,'
\nhas deviated from the basic philosophy of trial review, namely
\nthe protection of the rights of a defendant or his or her
\nbeneficiaries,\" the association said. (08)<\/p>\n
Editorial -- Page 4<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mochtar-says-court-ruling-on-unionist-illegal-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }