Judiciary facing hard task taming freedom of expression
Judiciary facing hard task taming freedom of expression
----------------------------------------------------------------
A string of recent trials mirrors difficulties facing the
judiciary in coping with mounting demands for freedom of
expression. Political scientist Ariel Heryanto takes a close look
at these trials.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): The credibility of the Indonesian
judiciary has been the target of enormous public criticism these
days. Small wonder street demonstrations and violence have become
more and more appealing to the weak and disillusioned as a way to
vent their frustrations.
Although the judiciary has had a tarnished image for more than
two decades, only very recently has the general helplessness and
public apathy been so obvious.
As recently as last year, when the Dili court deprived
defendant Xanana Gusmao of his right to present a defense plea,
public uproar had been minimal. However, things have changed
dramatically since two separate but equally controversial trials
in Surabaya and Jakarta took place.
The gallery in a Surabaya court room where a tax restitution
fraud case was being tried raised their hands, waved money in the
air and expressed their feeling that the court functionaries had
failed to be impartial.
Last month, members of the General Attorney office and Supreme
Court were engaged in a mud slinging match of mutual suspicion
and public denouncement.
Tortures
And no trial in the past two decades has caused such a deep
public anger in the country and overseas like the one now in
progress in Surabaya. Of course, this is the murder trial of
Marsinah, a female labor activist who has been turned into a
martyr.
A prestigious human rights award has been named after her. The
defendants and key witnesses in the case had retracted their
previous testimonies on the grounds that they had been given
under duress and the most inhuman tortures.
In Jakarta, a series of student activist trials have met with
a different response. The defendants, who were arrested when they
launched peaceful demonstrations at the parliament, are being
tried on charges of expressing hatred, hostility towards the
President and for defaming his good name.
These trials appear to have repeated what happened to student
activists in Jakarta (1989), Bandung (1989), Yogyakarta (1989-
1990), and Semarang (1993) in the wake of a revival of student
radicalism.
Some observers saw these trials as a deterrent to student
activists. However, all of the past trials had actually served to
provoke the student defendants and their fellow radicals to take
an even stronger stance.
Defense pleas were prepared and included arguments based on
evidence along with also with condemnations and counter-charges
against their accusers.
But in the end, they lost the legal battle. No defendant in
any of these political trials has been declared not guilty.
Legal battle
Apparently, having no more confidence in the law, student
defendants and their supporters have thrown out the idea of
fighting a legal battle or preparing a serious defense. Instead,
they decided to transform the legal proceedings into an aesthetic
spectacle and political festivity. The trial of Nuku Soleiman,
ending last February, is a good case in point.
From the outset Nuku had no illusions of a fair and impartial
trial. He entered the first session in casual outfit and plastic
scandals. In subsequent proceedings, he and his defense counsel
often walked out of the courtroom in protest. Fellow activists
attending the trial made all sorts of naughty remarks both inside
as well as outside the courtroom.
The disavowal reached a climax on the day of the verdict was
passed when crowds of young strangers appeared in the court
building to meet Nurhayati and Sihol, two judges in Nuku's trial.
It turned out that these young people came to look for jobs
listed in two fake advertisements. Then an ambulance arrived at
the building intending to rescue Nurhayati, as requested by
someone who identified himself as Sihol. Before long a Pizza Hut
delivery service entered the scene, adding to the spectacle.
More gimmicks of original imagination have been performed in
the Jakarta trials of 21 students activists now in progress. In
attempt to repair the credibility of these trials, the court has
allowed prominent dissidents to testify as expert-witnesses.
It is amazing that such prominent government critics such as
Ali Sadikin, Abdurrahman Wahid, Sabam Sirait, Sri Bintang
Pamungkas and Franz Magnis-Suseno were given permission to speak.
But this sort of thing tends to occur when the judiciary has lost
its credibility. Hence, a question arises whether or not this is
a belated attempt to win back people's confidence?
Many dissidents have decided to shift the battle outside the
court room. Some speculate that on the day of the verdict of
these trials we will see a second Malari (the biggest
demonstration in New Order era in Jakarta in January 1974).
In the neighboring country the Philippine president and his
critics are now waging a legal battle over the running of state-
sponsored lottery.
In Indonesia activists won such a battle against the
government not in the court but in street demonstrations.
The writer is a lecturer at the post-graduate program at the
Satya Wacana Christian University in Salatiga.