Conflicting expert opinions

Reading experts' opinions about legal matters in the print media -- something akin to a crash course for the community -- will only lead to confusion.

In criminal law, for example, the Indonesian acronym KUHP for the Criminal Code may be twisted into Kasih Uang Habis Perkara, (give money and the case is closed). It is a reality that a wallet is more powerful than a law.

When attorney general Marzuki Darusman made a statement that President Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid was not involved in scams involving the funds of State Logistics Agency (Bulog) and monetary aid from the Sultan of Brunei, many legal experts voiced doubt about the truth of this statement on the grounds that, among other things, Marzuki was then Gus Dur's close assistant. Later, when Marzuki was dismissed from his position, this unsympathetic comment simply blew away in the wind.

The public becomes even more confused in the area of constitutional law. Constitutional law experts have made conflicting statements, which will not serve as a guideline for the public but a spectacle devoid of attractiveness, instead.

Constitutional law experts -- veterans and newcomers alike -- cannot agree when interpreting a particular case, for example whether the Brunei scandal is a political or legal case. The two camps refuse to budge from their positions as one side maintains it is a legal case while the other holds it is a political one. The result? More confusion for the public.

It is really hard to find truth in oral statements made by our experts, so the public can simply decide to ignore these statements. The people, out of utter exasperation, have their own perception of the so-called Bruneigate.

For the public this matter is neither political nor legal. To the realistic and practical-minded public, this matter is just a matter of money. Want evidence? Well, when a case does not involve money, nobody cares. Once the case is related to money, everyone cares.

SUKANTO

Jakarta