Government seeks new trial in Kedungombo case

Government seeks new trial in Kedungombo case

JAKARTA (JP): The government, still reeling at a Supreme Court
decision in a highly charged land dispute, announced yesterday
that it plans to petition for a new trial.

The Attorney General's chief spokesman Basrief Arief told
reporters yesterday that the government will also file for a stay
of execution of the Supreme Court's ruling over the amount of
compensation it must pay the displaced villagers pending the
outcome of the new trial.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of 34 farmers in Boyolali,
Central Java, who demanded a higher amount of compensation than
the government was willing to offer. Their land, including houses
and ricefields, had been procured to make way for the massive
Kedungombo dam.

The decision overturned the rulings of the court of first
instance and the high court, both of which favored the Central
Java Provincial Government. The Supreme Court ruling, signed by
Justice Asikin Kusuma Atmadja in July 1993, only became public
knowledge last week.

The construction of the $166 million multi-purpose reservoir,
partially funded by the World Bank, was fraught with controversy
in the mid 1980s when thousands of farmers and their families
resisted eviction.

Most of them eventually did leave, but 34 farmers, who
together possessed nine hectares of land, decided to take the
government to court.

Basrief declined to comment on what grounds the government is
filing for a new trial, which is technically possible only if the
petitioner presents new evidence.

He said the Central Java High Prosecutors Office will file for
the new trial on behalf of the Central Java government and the
Ministry of Public Works, both co-defendants in the trial.

Moerdjono, Chief of the Central Java High Prosecutors Office
in Semarang, however, said the petition will be based on the fact
that the Supreme Court ruling set the compensation rate higher
than that sought by the plaintiffs.

The farmers demanded only Rp 10,000 (US$4.80) per square meter
of land and building area. In contrast, the Supreme Court granted
Rp 50,000 for each square meter of land and building and Rp
30,000 for every square meter of farmland.

"The court's ruling is strange since it also ordered the
government to pay Rp 2 billion in non-material losses that were
not requested by the farmers," Moerdjono said.

The government had set its compensation at Rp 4,000 per square
meter.

Many legal experts welcomed this latest ruling as a sign of
the Supreme Court's independence in reaching decisions. They also
lauded the court for taking pains to meet with the villagers.

Welcome

The Supreme Court, which is already complaining about a huge
backlog of appeal cases, yesterday said it was prepared to deal
with any petition for a new trial.

Justice Bismar Siregar, responding to yesterday's announcement
by the Attorney General's office, told The Jakarta Post that the
system permits anyone to ask for a new trial if new evidence
comes to light that had not been considered in previous trials.

"An appeal can also be made if the court's ruling gives more
than what had been requested," Bismar said.

He added, however, that the Supreme Court has its reasons for
making the decision, including allowing for inflation given that
the petition had been submitted four years back.

Bismar said that technically, the government's request for a
stay of execution of the court ruling cannot be granted. The only
time such a request could be granted is if the execution
exacerbates an already muddled situation.

"The execution cannot await the outcome of the new trial," he
said firmly.

Noted lawyer Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, who along with the
Semarang chapter of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute
represented the farmers, told the Post that the government's case
for a new trial was feeble.

"The only thing that can trigger a review is when new evidence
surfaces," he said, adding that he does not see any new evidence
in this case.

Another lawyer, Todung Mulya Lubis, shared Abdul Hakim's view
and said that the appeal process should be used only in
extraordinary circumstances.

He felt that the government had misused its opportunity for an
appeal. (05/har)

Editorial -- Page 4