Former chief justice says court intervention os perennial
Former chief justice says court intervention os perennial
JAKARTA (JP): The Supreme Court is constantly under pressure from various parties trying to influence its rulings, former chief justice Purwoto S. Gandasubrata says.
Purwoto explained that very often the chief justice will issue an order intervening in a case handled by the Supreme Court at the instigation of a third party rather than at his own initiative.
He said that the chief justice is empowered by law with the authority to intervene, even to the point of ordering a stay of execution of a ruling made by the Supreme Court.
Purwoto made his remarks on Friday evening during a monthly meeting of the Jakarta Lawyers' Club.
He was commenting on the controversy over the decision by his successor, Chief Justice Soerjono, to issue a letter preventing the execution of the Supreme Court ruling on a land conflict in Irian Jaya. The court had earlier ruled in favor of a local resident who is fighting for compensation for his land from the government.
Critics say Soerjono's move is just more proof that the Court's position is subordinate to that of the government.
Purwoto said that the chief justice constantly receives appeals to intervene from all sides; from the government, lawyers, plaintiffs and defendants.
"We often receive requests from the government to cancel or delay the execution of a Supreme Court ruling in the name of development," he said.
Chief Justice Soerjono has defended his decision to issue the letter in the Irian Jaya land dispute saying that it was done under his authority to supervise and guide the justices serving in the Supreme Court.
Before he stepped down as chief justice last November, Purwoto left a legacy of his own when he overturned a ruling by the Court in favor of dozens of villagers who were fighting for better compensation for their land from the government.
The main speaker at Friday's meeting, J.E. Sahetapy, a criminal law professor of Airlangga University in Surabaya, said there was enough evidence to show that the Supreme Court's lack of independence that is actually guaranteed by the constitution.
Sahetapy acknowledged that there is some "power by remote control" behind some of the Supreme Court's controversial decisions.
He was not all that pessimistic about the independence of the court system, pointing out two recent rulings that went against the government.
He referred to the Supreme Court's decision to acquit all nine main defendants of the charges of murdering labor activist Marsinah, and the Jakarta State Administrative Court's ruling declaring the government's ban against Tempo magazine last year illegal.
"The two court rulings have made the people, who had had breathing difficulties, catch their breath again," he said. (imn)