House laws should protect social interests
As 1997 draws to a close, lawyer T. Mulya Lubis evaluates law enforcement and development over the past year and shares his expectations for the coming year.
Question: Do you think that court decisions during 1997 were in line with social justice?
Answer: If we take as our yardstick court decisions on trials which widely drew public interest, there was some disappointment, particularly cases of civil and political rights, rights of democracy and abuses of authority by government officials.
Judges tend to be less flexible in interpreting laws, so they act more as spokesmen for laws instead for justice.
Q: Do you think judges, when trying political cases, were independent of pressure from the government?
A: There was a general impression that our courts were partial, not fully independent and not free because they are part of the government.
But we are satisfied with the trial of Dwi "Iwik" Sumaji (acquitted from charges of murdering journalist Fuad M. Syafruddin), where the legal procedures were conducted openly and there was a good response toward society's sense of justice.
Q: Was there any other trial where the legal procedures involved a scenario prepared by a third party?
A: It is difficult to prove that legal procedures involved a scenario prepared by a third party. But it is easy to prove cases where due process of the law was not observed, cases that produced decisions favoring the power holders, and those that flaunted the right to different opinions, social rights, as well as civil and political rights.
There was a general impression that our courts took the side of the power holders whenever they hear political cases.
When they hear cases involving business interests, the judgements went for the businesspeople. Collusion between court officials and business people parties have increased.
Q: The House of Representatives produced dozens of laws this year but their deliberations were hasty. Do you think the laws are of good quality?
A: There was a tendency for DPR members to rush in deliberating bills, thereby compromising their attention on substance. We frequently asked the DPR and the Ministry of Manpower not to rush the new law on manpower to allow adequate time to listen to and discuss proposals from workers, employers, academicians and professionals. But because they were told that all bills had to be completed before October, the members hastily produced many laws. The law on manpower, for example, contains many contentious points.
Q: Why are only a few of the new laws related to the protection of public interest?
A: That is the legal consequence of having the House members elected on a proportional basis and having their membership determined by those close to the power center. The proportional representation system results in the appointment of DPR members who do not represent their constituents but their parties. If we had used a district method in the May elections, the members would feel that they represent the people and would feel obliged to promote the interest of their political constituents.
Q: What new laws should be produced and what existing laws need revision next year?
A: As we are now more open to change, the development of a market-oriented economy would not be balanced if it was not supported by greater democracy, the respect of human rights and the protection of civil and political rights.
Even though we have laws on civil and political rights, we need to revise them, particularly those related to political parties, the press, mass organizations and nongovernmental organizations.
The House should place high on its agenda antimonopoly and anti-trust laws to support the democratization of the economy.
We need a new trade law or review the existing one. There is a great need for regulations on bankruptcy and insolvency in line with new developments.
A cyber-law is also urgent because more and more business transactions are conducted via the Internet. If we have no such law, people will easily make transactions or exchange social and cultural values not suitable for our development programs through the cyberspace without any regulations governing them.
Q: What do you think about bribery and the legal process?
A: That is very apprehensive. If there is no improvement, the so- called trading of laws, trading of justice or trading of decisions will be an insult to the justice system in Indonesia.
Q: How do you see the recent arrest of prosecutors by the police on alleged misconduct?
A: That is actually a matter of ethics, not a matter of law. Any parties other than the DPR and the People's Consultative Assembly, ministers and other high ranking officials can be arrested, investigated or questioned by the police. But because prosecutors and policemen are members of law enforcement agencies, they should have been able to coordinate themselves through routine meetings. (riz)