Goenawan's case is a warning to everybody

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.