1996: A troubled year for the justice system

By Imanuddin

JAKARTA (JP): Hopes that the courts of law would become more independent from the omnipotent government were dashed by the turn of events affecting the country's justice system in 1996.

The year started on a positive note, because 1995 had seen many judges asserting their independence, showing no reluctance to rule against the government.

The Tempo, Marsinah, Muchtar Pakpahan and Kedung Ombo rulings were landmark litigations in 1995 in which the courts, or rather individual judges, showed they were not intimidated by the powers that be. These decisions raised expectations that the judiciary branch had begun to free itself from the tentacles of the executive branch.

They turned out to be false hopes.

The main lesson of 1996 is that justice does not operate in a political vacuum.

The Supreme Court was in the spotlight for most of the year. Chief Justice Soerjono, who retired in November, was very much involved in some of the controversies.

The Supreme Court's behavior, and some of its rulings this year, showed that even the last bastion of justice could not escape from the powerful influence of the executive branch.

A number of rulings that drew public interest were settled in government's favor.

In June, the Supreme Court reversed the earlier rulings by the Jakarta State Administrative High Court and the Jakarta State Administrative Court in the case pitting the journalists of Tempo magazine against the government, in this case, the Minister of Information Harmoko.

The two lower courts had ruled against Harmoko, proclaiming his 1994 decision revoking the publishing license of Tempo illegal. The two courts also questioned the constitutional legality of the minister's 1984 decree that empowered him to issue, and revoke, press publishing licenses.

Chief Justice Soerjono, who heard the appeal of the case in the Supreme Court, ruled in favor of Harmoko deciding the 1984 decree was legal.

Soerjono was again at the center of a controversial case in October, just a few days before his retirement, overruling another decision made by fellow justices.

Together with justices Sarwata, his eventual successor, and Palti Raja Siregar, he annulled the Supreme Court's earlier decision acquitting labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan of criminal charges for his alleged role in a 1994 workers' riot in Medan, North Sumatra.

"We had to overrule the Supreme Court's earlier decision because we found mistakes in the implementation of the law," Soerjono said in his decision.

Pakpahan, chairman of the unrecognized Prosperous Labor Union, was sentenced to three years in jail in November 1994 for inciting riots in Medan, North Sumatra. The High Court increased the sentence to four years. But Pakpahan was later released from jail after a three-member panel of Supreme Court justices, led by Adi Andojo Soetjipto, exonerated him of all charges.

Soerjono upheld the previous High Court ruling and ordered Pakpahan to serve his four years in jail.

The Pakpahan ruling left a sour after taste. It was the first time government prosecutors had appealed for a review of a criminal case to the Supreme Court. And they won first time round.

Some may consider this an innovation, but others point out that this is hardly the kind of ground-breaking stuff people expected the Supreme Court do to improve its image.

Collusion

Allegations of collusion in the Supreme Court further undermined attempts to bolster the image and credibility of the court, and the entire legal system.

While many lauded Adi Andojo, deputy chief justice for criminal cases, for launching a campaign to cleanse the Supreme Court of corruption, the way the issue was settled, or some say "swept under the carpet", was discouraging to say the least.

Allegations of collusion came into the open after a classified letter, from Adi Andojo to the Attorney General's Office requesting a fresh investigation into a case, found its way into a magazine.

Adi Andojo had found irregularities in the Supreme Court's decision to acquit an Indian, teacher Ram Gulumal, on charges of unlawful land procurement for the construction of the Indian Gandhi Memorial International School in Ancol, North Jakarta. Adi Andojo suspected some members of the Court had been compromised, if not bought.

Chief Justice Soerjono agreed to open an investigation. The investigation, however, did not substantiate the charges of corruption, although it found a "violation of procedure" in the way the case had been handled in the Supreme Court.

Not content with the outcome, Adi Andojo continued to demand a more open investigation, only to be reprimanded by Soerjono.

The Chief Justice then wrote to President Soeharto requesting Adi Andojo be removed from the court. Soerjono is now retired, but the request for Adi's dismissal remains pending.

The year 1996 also saw a growing number of political trials being filed by the government and its critics or opponents.

The government this year resorted more and more to the 1963 anti-subversion law, a powerful and all-encompassing legislation that has proven effective in clamping down on critics. The law carries a maximum death penalty.

Nine activists of the Democratic People's Party, including its chairman Budiman Sudjatmiko, are simultaneously being tried for activities the government says ran counter to the state ideology Pancasila.

The students are being charged with subversion for their failure to specify Pancasila as their party's ideology, for organizing labor protests, for attempting to repeal five political laws and for opposing the military's role in politics.

Labor activist Muchtar Pakpahan is also being tried for alleged subversive and anti-government remarks, made in a book he wrote, in a speech at a Portuguese university, and in an interview with Dutch television station NOVA at his home.

In spite of the erratic performance of the courts of law, people who were the target of government injustices, including the government's critics, continued to place their hopes for justice on the courts.

Megawati Soekarnoputri filed a series of lawsuits against the government, the military and the leaders of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) for their roles in ousting her from party leadership in a congress in Medan in June.

She joined forces with the Indonesian Bar Association and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation whose members make up her team of lawyers.

"The legal action is meant to be a lesson for PDI members and the public in general to have the courage to stand up against injustices," she once said.

Inspired by Megawati's courage in challenging the government, hundreds of her loyalists from the PDI's 306 branches in the regions filed lawsuits against the participants of the congress, which they claim was illegally organized.

Megawati's lawsuit is now in the hands of the Jakarta High Court. But to get it there she had to file an appeal to the higher court against the Central Jakarta District Court's decision which rejected her lawsuit. The hearings of the branches' lawsuits are still in progress.

These political trials will further test the independence of the courts, or the judges. They will also be the litmus tests for new chief justice, Sarwata, who assumed his post in November. Some of these cases, if not all, are expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court.