Courts still to prove independence, fairness

By A'an Suryana

JAKARTA (JP): When the reform spirit started to sweep across the country last year, people began to hope that the government would establish independence and fairness in the court system.

People thought the government would listen to their aspirations and improve the performance of the courts, which, ever since the New Order government rose to power in 1966, had often ignored the will of the people when pronouncing verdicts.

People got sick and tired of the courts' verdicts, which only appeared to serve the interests of the ruling government and ignored those of the majority.

It was no secret that the government intervened in certain cases, particularly those involving high-ranking government officials. Meanwhile, bribery was reportedly rampant among judges, prosecutors and lawyers.

The resignation of Soeharto from the presidency in May last year brought about huge expectations concerning Indonesian courts, especially those in Jakarta.

A new page in the Indonesian legal system was opened as law enforcers started to question Soeharto over his alleged role in corruption, collusion and nepotism during his 32-year tenure.

Soeharto was summoned and eventually testified before a team of government investigators at the Attorney General's Office on Sept. 25. Such a development would have been unimaginable when the retired five-star general was still in power.

But the public grew to believe that the month-long investigation was merely lip service when then acting attorney general Ismudjoko announced on Oct. 11 that all charges against the former president had been dropped.

Earlier in April, the Soeharto family suffered another blow to its reputation.

The South Jakarta District Court opened in April the hearing of a Rp 95.4 billion (US$13.4 million) land scam, which allegedly involved Soeharto's youngest son Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra.

Tommy faced the possibility of a maximum penalty of life in prison and/or 20 years imprisonment and a fine of Rp 30 million for corruption, as stipulated in Paragraph A, Article 1 of Anticorruption Law no. 3/1971.

Other defendants were former chairman of the State Logistics Agency (Bulog) Beddu Amang and businessman Ricardo Gelael.

The charge against Beddu was later dropped by the court after it failed to secure the approval of then president B.J. Habibie's to bring Beddu to court. The approval was necessary owing to Beddu being a member of the People's Consultative Assembly at the time.

In the initial hearing, prosecutor Fachmi charged that Tommy, the president commissioner of wholesaler PT Goro Batara Sakti, conspired with Beddu and Ricardo, the company's president director, in a land exchange deal between Feb. 17, 1985 and May 4, 1998.

Fachmi said Tommy signed a memorandum of understanding with Beddu for the land exchange deal involving a plot of land and warehouses owned by Bulog in Kelapa Gading, North Jakarta, on Feb. 17, 1995.

Under the agreement, Tommy was required to provide a 125- hectare plot of land in an exchange for Bulog's 50-hectare warehouse complex.

Tommy then secured a loan of Rp 20 billion from Bank Bukopin with a Rp 23 billion cash guarantee from Bulog.

In the indictment read out at the hearing, Fachmi charged that the defendant used the loan to buy a plot of land in Marunda from businessman Hokkiarto.

Beddu bought another plot of land in Marunda, also from Hokkiarto, for Rp 32 billion. Fachmi said the purchase should have been paid for by Goro instead of Beddu.

The land bought by Tommy and Beddu from Hokkiarto totaled 71.2 hectares. Before setting up the Kelapa Gading Goro wholesaler, the management demolished 11 warehouses on the site, causing Bulog Rp 7 billion in losses.

Fachmi said the state suffered further losses in the transaction, including Rp 23 billion in rent on eight hectares of land occupied by the wholesaler firm and Rp 9.4 billion in rent for Bulog's seven warehouses on the site.

Tommy, who had 80 percent share in Goro, and Ricardo, with the remaining 20 percent, sold their shares in the company on May 4 last year to the Confederation of Primary Cooperatives Association (Inkud) for Rp 140 billion.

On Aug. 30, prosecutor Fachmi demanded that the court sentence Tommy to two years in jail for causing losses to state. In a separate courtroom, prosecutor Dachamer Munthe made the same demand for Ricardo Gelael.

Both prosecutors accused the defendants of violating Article 28 of Law no. 3/1971 on corruption.

But the court exonerated both executives of the company from all corruption charges, saying there was not enough evidence to prove the charges against Tommy and Ricardo.

The verdicts raised concern from legal experts, including Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (YLBHI) chairman Bambang Widjoyanto.

Bambang said the verdicts insulted people's sense of justice. He also said the verdict was an indication of the government's lack of seriousness in dealing with corruption, especially cases involving former president Soeharto and his family and associates.

'Soeharto vs Time'

In an apparent attempt to strike back at his critics and to prove his innocence, Soeharto filed a lawsuit against the New York-based Time magazine on July 6, demanding the magazine pay Rp 189 trillion in damages for a cover story published in the magazine's May 24 Asian edition which alleged that Soeharto and his family had amassed a US$15 billion fortune during his 32-year reign.

The lawsuit named Time Inc. Asia in Hong Kong as the first defendant. Also named were Time Asia editor-in-chief Donald Morrison, Hong Kong bureau chief John Colmey and reporters David Liebhold, Lisa Rose Weaver, Zamira Lubis and Jason Tedjasukmana.

The prosecution has fared well in the trial so far, with the Central Jakarta District Court issuing a pretrial ruling on Nov. 10 declaring that the court had the authority to hear the case. The court has yet to announce whether it will accept or reject the lawsuit.

Sutardjianto

One corruption case which illustrated the influence of power holders and money in the Indonesian justice system was the trial of former West Jakarta mayor Sutardjianto, who was accused of abusing his position during his five-year tenure from 1988 to 1993 to profit by Rp 2.6 billion.

Judge Soeparno of the West Jakarta District Court put Sutardjianto on eight months probation after declaring the defendant guilty of receiving "gifts". He was processed under Article 418 of the Criminal Code.

Witnesses Yanto Lukman and Wen Chei Siang testified that Sutardjianto supplied them with deeds to a 7,080-square-meter plot of land and a 9,330-square-meter plot in North Meruya subdistrict in North Jakarta in exchange for money.

The land was part of a 19,800-square-meter plot owned by the West Jakarta administration.

Ownership of the land was disputed after former governor Ali Sadikin 1972 allocated the land to house hundreds of homeless people.

Sutardjianto's predecessors did not carry out the housing plan. The former mayor said he made a decision on the matter and retained the ownership certificates of the land, which had been sold by unknown parties before he took the helm of the West Jakarta administration.

Sutardjianto received money transfers from both witnesses totaling Rp 1.6 billion in 1996. He told a previous hearing that another Rp 1 billion was obtained from people claiming ownership of land in the same plot.

Soeparno said: "The verdict was to teach people and the defendant to not commit corruption in the future."

At a previous hearing, prosecutor Rusli demanded the court sentence the defendant to one year in jail.

The verdict drew immediate objection from noted anticorruption activist Teten Masduki, who accused the judges of having charged the defendants under the wrong article.

"The decision was controversial. The defendant had indeed returned the money to the state, but it could not cover the fact that he had been involved in corruption," said Teten, coordinator of the independent Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW).

Teten said the judges should have applied Article 1 of the 1971 Anticorruption Law, which stipulates a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Article 418 of the Criminal Code, however, only carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail.

Istiqlal bombing

Poor performance by the city's courts was also apparent in the trial of a suspect in the April bombing of the Istiqlal Grand Mosque.

Judge Rasadi Salmun of the Central Jakarta District Court sentenced on Oct. 18 the main defendant, Surya Setiawan alias Wawan, to 38 months in jail.

The jail term was much more lenient than the maximum penalty stipulated in Article 1 of the 1951 Emergency Law, which is the death sentence.

Previously, prosecutor Hasan Madani demanded the court sentence Wawan to 54 months in jail.

Judge Rasadi said the defendant was guilty of carrying and detonating the bomb, along with suspects Jamhuri Litanahu, Nurly, Suradi, Semi Sedubun, Ati and Sanusi alias Uci, on April 19.

The bomb detonated and damaged a wall on the mosque's ground floor, as well as shattered windows of the Indonesian Ulemas Council. Five people were injured in the explosion.

In a separate hearing, Nurly and Uci were sentenced to 36 months in jail, while other suspects are still being tried at separate court hearings.

The bomb blast at the mosque, the biggest in Southeast Asia, caused unease among many Jakartans.