Class action casts light on judiciary

The lawsuit filed Thursday against the State Electricity Company (PLN) by the Indonesian Consumers Foundation (YLKI) for an eight-hour blackout throughout Java and Bali last month may have taken the public by surprise, given its uncustomary nature. Kastorius Sinaga, a lecturer in social sciences at the University of Indonesia's postgraduate program, ponders this event.

JAKARTA (JP): The Sunday, April 13, 1997 blackout has ironically cast a light on our uncertain legal system. It is the legal right of people to sue the government or state-managed public enterprises because of any neglect in giving the best service to the community.

This legal suit represented by the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute is called class action, a remote term in legal vocabulary.

It is likely that the community, the majority of whom are not law-conscious, will be confused, wondering whether the state- owned electricity company could be sued, especially since the blackout was not intended by PLN.

How is it possible that the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, a small private NGO with insignificant power, could fight against giant PLN using an alien sounding term: class action.

It is therefore interesting to analyze the meaning behind this class action suit.

Originally, class action was a scientific term that political scientists used in referring to the existence of a collective action by a homogeneous community group.

Therefore, class action is often perceived as a labor strike or demonstration by a community group that is relatively homogeneous in terms of members' social status and type of work.

Society, however, indispensable of its background of professions, economic status and gender, is also entitled to launch a class action suit. It has the same status as consumers of products or services, provided by certain businesses and companies.

An important element in class action is the existence of a situation in which common interest and collective rights are proven to have been disturbed by a party that is obliged to protect them.

The form and method of organizing a class action suit vary, but it has the same platform, through representation by an institute fighting for the claims of a community group it represents.

The YLKI, in this respect, serves as trustee for all PLN consumers who have been prejudiced by the blackout by PLN. Therefore, the meaning behind the class action suit has expanded.

First, unlike before, our present and future legal system is no longer seen as a repressive device used by authority over the interests of society.

On the contrary, as the class action suit against PLN will show, the legal system should be able to protect the community from government's arbitrary behavior, especially in its coercive power as a political entity.

Second, the suit shows the important relevance of public accountability in government bureaucracy, including in its institutions, especially considering that government institutions are monopolistic in the production of public goods and services.

Entrepreneur spirit, professionalism and dedication to quality and consumer interest are key prerequisites of a market economy system. These have not yet been displayed by government institutions in their capacity as principal players in our economic system.

Third, the tradition of collective legal suits against public institutions through class action will gradually become institutionalized in our legal system. This will make the law a more interesting subject for legal practitioners.

Beyond the law, in the sense that it will become a reflection of an encounter between various interests and political forces, elements will be revealed which are seen as the main enemies of the law itself, that is: arrogance of power, arbitrariness and authoritarianism.