Experts lament court's ruling on labor leader

Experts lament court's ruling on labor leader

JAKARTA (JP): Legal experts have criticized the Supreme
Court's decision to put labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan back in
prison more than a year after he was freed.

Pakpahan, leader of the unrecognized Indonesian Prosperous
Labor Union, was found guilty of inciting a riot in Medan, North
Sumatra, in April 1994 which resulted in one death. He was
sentenced to four years in prison before the Supreme Court freed
him in September 1995 for lack of evidence.

The unprecedented but widely applauded decision was made by
respected justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto following an appeal from
Pakpahan's lawyers.

Havid Abdul Latif, a Medan-based attorney, said Monday the
Supreme Court had overruled its previous decision and reinstated
a lower court's four-year jail sentence against Pakpahan.

Luhut Pangaribuan of the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute called
the Supreme Court's back flip a "political ruling".

Pakpahan is being detained at the attorney general's lockup
pending trial on new charges of subversion relating to the July
27 riots in Jakarta in which at least five people died.

Lawyer Frans Hendra Winarta said the Supreme court had made
yet another controversial decision.

The latest decision was made by former Chief Justice Soerjono
on Oct. 25, only five days before he retired.

Luhut said he doubted that Justice Adi would have made a
mistake in Pakpahan's case, as cited by Soerjono in his decision.

"It's a crying shame that such an authoritative ruling was
overruled, once again the Supreme Court's image has been marred,"
Luhut said.

Frans said the main task of the Supreme Court was to ensure
that the ruling was implemented according to law.

"This was reflected in Adi's decision," Frans said.

Adi Andojo, who was the subject of Soerjono's dismissal
petition to President Soeharto in the middle of this year, told
The Jakarta Post he had not heard of the Supreme Court's latest
decision on Pakpahan.

"But I believe that under the law only the defendant or his
beneficiary has the right to demand a trial review," he said,
referring to Article 263 of the criminal code.

Adi disagreed with the latest ruling based on the Article's
point 2c, which stipulates that "a trial review is made if the
ruling shows that there has been a mistake made by a judge or
another evident mistake".

Approach

Adi said he based his ruling on a new "problem thinking"
approach which should have been exercised by the lower judges
when deciding Pakpahan's case, instead of using the old "system
thinking" approach.

Luhut said he shared Adi's reasoning, saying that Adi "has
provided material justice, instead of simply the formal justice
many judges are meting out."

Adi said the "problem thinking" approach demands that judges
look at phenomena surrounding a case, whereas a "system thinking"
approach demands that judges decide according to the criminal
code.

"So when I ruled to free Pakpahan, I no longer interpreted the
verb 'inciting' the same way it was used 85 years ago, that was
when the Dutch colonials resorted to the article to stop
Indonesian natives rebelling against them," Adi said.

"There have been changes since, where we can now enjoy our
freedom, the New Order government, globalization and ideas of
democratization. These things surrounding Pakpahan's case were
what the lower judges failed to cope with," he said.

"So the ruling I made can be accountable, because I made it
intentionally, by taking into account the situation and condition
surrounding the case," he concluded.

In a press statement Pakpahan's union said: "This is
Indonesia, which we claim is a state of law but where the prima
donnas are power and politics."

The government only recognizes the All-Indonesian Workers
Union Federation. (08)