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)