Bulwark of justice?

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday to acquit Akbar Tandjung of all charges of corruption, thereby overturning two earlier lower court verdicts sentencing the House of Representatives speaker to three years in prison, is certain to have serious consequences for this country for a long time to come.

In formulating its decision, the Supreme Court said that in the 1999 corruption case, the defendant could not be held responsible for the action of others involved in the embezzlement of Rp 40 billion in public money, as he was only carrying out the instructions of his superior at the time, president B.J. Habibie.

Considering a statement made last month by Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir Manan to the effect that it was the court's duty "only to examine whether the lower courts had applied the law correctly," yesterday's outcome should not have come entirely as a surprise. From the start, the trial of Akbar in this high- profile corruption case involving the misuse of public funds to the tune of Rp 40 billion, has been one of the quirkiest in Indonesia's judicial history, involving top-ranking public officials.

To briefly summarize the case: It all began when president B.J. Habibie, in a meeting on Feb. 10, 1999, ordered Bulog (the State Logistics Agency) to disburse Rp 40 billion from its nonbudgetary funds, supposedly to relieve the suffering of the poor under a "social safety net" program. Reportedly attending the meeting were Akbar Tandjung in his then capacity as minister/ state secretary, Bulog head Rahardi Ramlan and coordinating minister for people's welfare Haryono Suyono. It was agreed to entrust Akbar to oversee the disbursement of the money and to hand it over to three ministers in president Habibie's cabinet, namely coordinating minister for people's welfare Haryono Suyono, cooperatives minister Adi Sasono and minister of social welfare Joestika Baharsjah.

The first installment, totaling Rp 20 billion, divided equally between two checks and signed by Bulog deputy financial chief Ahmad Ruskandar, was issued on March 2, 1999, and was reportedly given by Ruskandar to Akbar, who in turn handed the checks to Fadel Muhammad and M.S. Hidayat, Golkar Party treasurer and deputy treasurer respectively. On April 20, at Akbar's request, Ruskandar issued eight more checks for a total of Rp 20 billion, which the latter reportedly handed to Golkar functionaries Fadel Muhammad, M.S. Hidayat, Enggartiasto Lukito, Setya Novanto and Golkar chairman Mahadi Sinambela. How Golkar functionaries came to be involved in the scheme was never satisfactorily explained.

The case might never have come to light but for the dramatic ouster of president Soeharto, and the regime change that occurred on Oct. 20, 1999, when Habibie, the new president in transition replacing Soeharto, was outvoted in presidential elections in the People's Consultative Assembly and Abdurrahman Wahid was elected the nation's new president. To cut a long story short, in subsequent court hearings Akbar at first denied ever having touched the checks, but later acknowledged having accepted them and having handed the checks to Raudatul Jannah, a private foundation led by Dadang Ruskandar. In court, Akbar claimed the foundation had been recommended by Haryono Suyono -- a claim which the latter denied.

Although Rp 32.5 billion of the money was eventually returned to the state by Winfried Simatupang, a businessman implicated in the case together with Akbar and Raudatul Jannah chairman Ruskandar, the Central Jakarta District Court, in its verdict on Sept. 4, 2002, found the House of Representatives speaker guilty of corruption as charged and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, to be served pending a final decision from the highest court of appeal.

At this point, a number of matters are worth noting. First, technical considerations aside, plain common sense would dictate that Akbar, being the person entrusted with the disbursement of the money, should bear the responsibility for its proper allocation -- that is, for the purpose of poverty alleviation, in accordance with the presidential instruction. In other words, yesterday's Supreme Court decision runs against the public's sense of justice, all the more so because the Supreme Court upheld the previous lower court rulings on two of Akbar's codefendants in the case, Winfried Simatupang and Dadang Sukandar, albeit with reduced terms. Considering that the Supreme Court ruling runs against two earlier court decisions, yesterday's verdict brings into question the quality of the entire judicial system in the eyes of the public and could seriously impair public trust in the judiciary as a whole -- not to mention the wider political implications. Many Indonesians also see it as a serious setback in the fight against corruption, especially that within the country's notoriously corrupt judiciary.

In any case, and for whatever it is worth, the country's highest legal authority has spoken: The case is closed. The logical consequence for Indonesians to ponder now is to prepare themselves for the social, political and possible economic repercussions that observers feel the ruling is certain to bring.