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)