I will gladly quit the race: Muladi

I will gladly quit the race: Muladi

Question: What is your position now that Gus Dur (President
Abdurrahman Wahid) has rejected your candidacy?

Answer: I believe that I have done all that I needed to do.
Through the selection of the chief justice at the House of
Representatives, I have proven (my ability) by scoring the
highest. Professionally, I have accomplished my task. The rest no
longer has anything to do with me, it is the responsibility of
the DPR in its relations with the President. It all depends on
the interaction of those two state institutions.

Whatever the outcome, I have to accept it, because it involves
processes of which I am not included. However, as a former
minister and someone with the experience of running a part of the
nation's affairs, I am hoping the interaction process between the
DPR and the President will not harm the life of the nation.

Once the President writes the DPR and the DPR takes its
position, will I then declare my position.

What is the legal perspective of this prolonged vacancy of the
chief justice post?

This is actually an interesting phenomenon. There are legal
experts who quite objectively assess the situation in the context
of our democracy. But there are also other scholars who I believe
no longer uphold the truth; rather they're merely seeking
justification. They are no longer academics but politicians.

I was nominated by Golkar. I had asked them beforehand,
whether they're serious in their nomination; if so, I would
prepare myself as seriously. Now everything can be left to the
hands of the President and DPR.

If they declared that I should quit the candidacy, I will
gladly do so. What's important is that we are building a
democratic tradition where the interests of the nation are held
supreme. I do not want to meddle. I do not wish to see
instability because some people want to retain Muladi (in the
race).

What is the legal base of the contradicting positions in this
dispute?

It's in Law No. 14/1985, article 8. Basically, it stipulates
that the President is obliged to appoint the chief justice that
the DPR has nominated. Some have interpreted the word
'nominating' as a situation which frees the President to either
reject or accept. Others have argued that the President acts as
the head of state, and so needs only to confirm the appointment.
This is indeed ambiguous.

I personally see the stipulation as having shortcomings, in
that people can interpret them as they wish. We cannot blame the
President or DPR because indeed the law that regulates the chief
justice selection is unclear.

A good juridical analysis, however, can show which
interpretations are driven by political interests.

What are the impacts of the prolonged debate over this?

I am really concerned. I do not wish to see that the extended
vacuum would in the end cause the Supreme Court to be 'co-opted'
by the power holders. We must not let this happen.

The selection and recruitment of the nominees has proceeded in
a transparent manner. It was done institutionally. Whoever wanted
to hamper (the normal course of selection) should have begun
their campaign before the process was underway. They could have
said that, for instance, nominees must never have served in the
New Order regime as ministers or director-generals.

They should have done this now, rejecting the completed
process by walking out (of a House debate on the matter).

Personally, I have no problems. I could always find a
profitable profession outside of the Supreme Court. But I am
concerned about how this is affecting our democracy.

There has been increasing demand for legal reform, which is
the consequence of the reform movement.

This will sooner or later affect the campaign for legal
reform, because the chief justice has an influential role to play
in the movement. A deputy chief justice cannot take on this role.

How do you see the end of this matter?

I don't think it will end smoothly.

What will you do?

I would resign. And if I did, I would not only resign from the
nomination but also from my post as a justice.

Why?

I just cannot see myself being in an organization without
being able to do anything for it. I don't want to remain as
justice even if the position is really respectable. My position
is clear, if I fail or am forced to fail (in the race), I will
resign. I will return to academia and work in other institutions
where I can be of more use, professionally and objectively.

There's speculation that there's a party seeking to remove
you.

Anyone can analyze (the presence) of many interests. Indeed
the selection process was tainted by political wrestling matches,
especially between the legislative and executive branches of
power.

We cannot erase history. I was indeed a minister of (former
president) Soeharto if only for 70 days. I was a minister of
(succeeding president) B.J. Habibie. I was a student activist. A
Golkar member, so of course people would say I am partisan to
Golkar and the New Order. I once defended (members of) the
Indonesian Military who were considered to be violators of human
rights.

Those facts have provided ammunition for people wishing to
target me. People forget that I have never committed any of the
crimes of the New Order regime, in fact I was once a rector and
member of the National Commission on Human Rights, fighting
corruption and human rights violations.

So of course there's a thick political nuance to the whole
matter.

Gus Dur has demanded that a chief justice must be honest and
clean.

I have answered all accusations leveled against me at the DPR.
I had been accused of tax evasion, corrupting the justice
ministry's funds for family interests, a womanizer. That's too
much. I have challenged the accusers to prove those charges
openly. It's clear now.

You're offended by Gus Dur's statement?

Anyone, including me, would be offended. But perhaps what we
really need is for Gus Dur to clarify his own remarks. (Deka
Kurniawan)