Goenawan's case is a warning to everybody

---------------------------------------------------------------- The East Jakarta District Court on Monday issued an asset preservation order covering the home of Tempo magazine co-founder Goenawan Mohamad. This was followed by the issuance of a similar order against the editorial offices of the Koran Tempo daily by the South Jakarta District Court. These measures were taken in connection with a suit filed by businessman Tomy Winata against Goenawan for allegedly libeling him. Senior lawyer Luhut MP Pangaribuan talked to The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto. about the case. ----------------------------------------------------------------

Question: How do you see the court's issuance of an asset preservation order against Goenawan's house?

Answer: This incident shows that the presiding judge took almost nothing into account before issuing his decision. The judge accepted the application from the plaintiff for the order without having regard to whether the legal grounds for the decision were strong enough or whether the action was really necessary. The judge also failed to take the possible implications of the seizure into consideration.

It's rare for a court to slap an asset preservation order on the property of a defendant in a libel case. How could this have happened in Goenawan's case?

Our legal system allows an application for preventive action to be taken so as to preserve assets in order that they may be used later to pay damages should the plaintiff win. A preventive seizure is intended to provide guarantees for the plaintiff should he win his case. The seizure is just the court's way of ensuring that the defendant will not attempt to disguise his ownership of the assets or dispose of them. Therefore, the court attempts to guarantee that there will be enough assets to pay the damages that are awarded to the plaintiff.

However, libel is a gray area where the plaintiff and the defendant have no concrete contractual relations. It's not a black-and-white matter.

Libel constitutes the committing of an illegal act by the defendant. In such cases the Supreme Court should have very clear guidelines; the court must be extra cautious before deciding on any seizure. The court needs concrete evidence regarding contractual relations between the defendant and the plaintiff before issuing an asset preservation order. In Goenawan's case, the court clearly lacked sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's application.

The court order was ostensibly issued on the grounds that the judge was worried that Goenawan would flee or dispose of his assets. Yet the judges dealing with big corruption cases have never issued such orders preventing the disposal of defendants' assets. Your comments?

I said earlier that the judge took virtually nothing into consideration before deciding to seize Goenawan's house. It was obvious that the judge saw the (Goenawan) case as an ordinary case.

There are strong indications that our judges make decisions without mature consideration. The Supreme Court should take note of this in its promotion examinations for judges. Judges with negative records should get negative grades. Goenawan's case shows that (the judge) just treated it like a standard case.

Isn't it more appropriate to use the Press Law to settle press-related cases?

That's the ideal. But we cannot avoid the use of other laws ... The point is that the court must be very careful.

The Supreme Court has issued practice directions to the courts that concrete evidence is absolutely required in libel suits. There are two questions: the facts and the points of law involved.

Legal proceedings here often do not reflect the public's sense of justice. Do you see this being reflected in the Goenawan case?

The order the court issued was an interlocutory order, which means it is not a final decision or verdict. Social and moral aspects have not yet been taken into consideration. That will come later with the verdict. The question is, however, was there any concrete evidence, something that is absolutely required in a libel suit? In the absence of such evidence the judge should not have made such a controversial decision.

I believe the (presiding) judge is not illiterate. He must know what Tempo magazine is and who Goenawan Mohamad is. Goenawan is not just a journalist. He is one of our best writers, whose works have been quoted everywhere. Goenawan lives in the public domain. I wish the presiding judge were illiterate, so we could forgive him.

It is public knowledge that law enforcement here is a mess, mainly due to corruption. What do you think?

Absolutely right. Goenawan's case proves that the masters are not justice, morals, legal certainty, or even the chief justice. The masters are those who bribe the law enforcers. Such bribes are often paid to individual law enforcers. In particular cases, a deal is entered into. A plaintiff may ask a law enforcer how much it will cost to have a defendant's property confiscated.

Does the issuance of this order set a bad precedent for future libel suits?

I would say yes. But it is more of a warning to everybody, not only the press, to be more alert against the "new masters" who have the power to influence our law enforcers at will, at any time. Tempo magazine once reported on the "magnificent nine" who are untouchable by the law in this country. Those who come up against them will be crushed.

So what should we do?

We just need good leaders, not rulers. Rulers are usually involved in bribery, but good leaders are free from such sins.