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)