Adi Andojo's ruling political: Attorney General

JAKARTA (JP): Attorney General Singgih said yesterday Justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto's ruling exonerating labor activist Muchtar Pakpahan last year was "politically motivated".

"That's one of the reasons why the (North Sumatra) prosecutors filed a request for a trial review to the Supreme Court," Singgih was quoted by Antara as saying yesterday.

He was referring to the Supreme Court's Sept. 29, 1995 ruling which acquitted Pakpahan of charges of inciting massive labor unrest in April 1994 in Medan, North Sumatra, which was overturned by another ruling this year. Adi Andojo, who shot to prominence early this year for disclosing rampant corruption at the Supreme Court, argued then that there was not enough evidence to convict Pakpahan.

In the second ruling issued in October, then chief justice Soerjono decided that Pakpahan would have to serve the remainder of his prison term meted out by the North Sumatra High Court.

Justice Adi, in his decision, had maintained that Pakpahan did not incite the labor unrest. Instead, the founder of the unrecognized Indonesian Prosperous Labor Union was only striving to empower workers.

Some people had taken the ruling's reversal as an indication of the poor relations between Adi and Soerjono, who retired on Nov. 1, because the latter could not accept Adi's whistle-blowing practices.

Singgih, however, pointed out that a number of people, separately tried in connection with the riot, had been found guilty of instigating the riot. The activists admitted to having received the instruction to demonstrate from Pakpahan.

"Why were the men who had received the order (to demonstrate) declared guilty, while the one who issued the instruction was freed?" Singgih said. "Does it make any sense?"

Singgih cited another reason for the prosecutors' request for the review trial, namely Article 263 (1) of the Criminal Code Procedures which, he said, does not prohibit prosecutors from filing for trial reviews of cases where the accused has been acquitted.

Singgih quoted the article which says, among other things: "those who can request for a trial review are the defendant or their beneficiaries, except for rulings that free the defendant".

Some observers have questioned Soerjono's ruling, pointing out that there are no regulations which permit prosecutors to request trial reviews on cases where their defendants have been ruled free by the Supreme Court.

Singgih, however, insisted that the absence of regulations does not mean that prosecutors do not have any rights to request for a trial review.

Besides, Singgih said, there's another legal ground for the trial review request, namely the No. 15/1961 Law on Prosecutors, which allows prosecutors to do so.

"The prosecutors asked for the trial review in the name of the state and the society, so why mustn't we?," Singgih said.

"Besides, the Supreme Court granted our demand (for a trial review), so that means what we did was acceptable," he said.

Singgih said the prosecutors were only striving to uphold the law and establish legal certainty based on justice and the truth. (08)