Attorney General cannot seek review of Tommy case
Tiarma Siboro Bambang Nurbianto, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Legal experts said on Thursday the Attorney General's Office cannot file a judicial review against the Supreme Court's verdict that cleared former president Soeharto's youngest son Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra of corruption charges, saying such a move can only be taken by a convict.
"There is no legal basis for the Attorney General's Office to file a review against an edict issued in response to a review request submitted by a convict," legal expert Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.
"If the Attorney General's Office goes ahead in filing a case review, it will be seen as carrying political underpinnings," he said.
Article 263, paragraph 1 of the country's Criminal Code stipulates that only a convict or his/her heirs can file a judicial review.
The Supreme Court on Monday overturned its earlier verdict that convicted fugitive Tommy of corruption for his involvement in a Rp 95.4 billion (US$11.2 million) land-swap case between his supermarket chain PT Goro Batara Sakti and the State Logistics Agency (Bulog).
The ruling took lawmakers and legal experts by surprise, and may tarnish President Megawati Soekarnoputri's efforts to recover trust in the country's legal system. Some lawmakers have urged the government to investigate the judges in the case.
Abdul Hakim said controversy over cases involving Soeharto and his family members would continue as long as the government and legal authorities are not committed to resolving them.
"In Tommy's case, for example, why would state prosecutors investigate the Goro case which did not have clear evidence of Tommy's involvement. There are so many other cases which could be used to bring Tommy to court," Abdul Hakim said.
"I do not blame the justices for clearing Tommy of corruption charges because that particular case was very weak," he said.
Separately, Achmad Ali a professor of law at Hasanuddin University in Sulawesi roundly criticized the legal process in this case.
"The Tommy case clearly reveals some odd things, including the Supreme Court decision to reopen the case, which contradicts Article 1 of Law No. 3/1950," Achmad told the Post by telephone.
He stressed that a formal request for a presidential pardon is the absolute final legal effort available for a suspect to take.
"It should be understood that no legal step can be taken after a request for a presidential pardon is rejected," he said, referring to former president Abdurrahman Wahid's rejection of such a plea last year.
"A pardon request is filed by someone who admits guilt, while a review is filed by someone who denies responsibility (for a crime) and continues to claim innocence," he said.
Achmad, however, admitted that another review filed by the Attorney General's Office also has no legal basis, but "it is at least consistent to challenge some weird things with more weird things."
Achmad further said that justice M. Taufiq was inconsistent when he contended that Tommy, as a commissioner of Goro Batara Sakti, could not be held responsible for any policies decided by the company's board of directors.
However, in the case of timber tycoon Mohamad "Bob" Hasan, the Supreme Court decided that, as commissioner of PT Mapindo Parama, he was responsible for corruption, and thus guilty and sentenced to six years in prison.
Achmad, who served as an expert advisor to the late, former attorney general Baharrudin Lopa, also underlined that negotiations held between Goro and Bulog were conducted in 1995, a year before Tommy resigned as commissioner from the company.
"If the Supreme Court opens hearings for another review in the Tommy case to be filed by prosecutors, I guess the court will likely take people's disappointment seriously," Achmad said.