Justices waver in controversial cases

JAKARTA (JP): Justice. In the broad sense, it means fairness and righteousness. But the word also has another meaning. Those who handle cases at the Supreme Court are called justices, unlike the judges who sit on the district and high courts.

Supreme Court justices are expected to mete out justice. As a last resort, the Supreme Court exists to uphold or correct lower court rulings. Several Supreme Court decisions over the past few years, however, have provoked controversy. These include the cases of Pakpahan, Obee, Tempo and Kedung Ombo.

The first three cases were handled by Soerjono during his tenure as chief justice from November 1994 until October 1996. The Kedung Ombo decision was handed down by Purwoto S. Gandasubrata two days before he retired and was replaced by Soerjono.

Purwoto overturned the decision made by justice Asikin Kusumah Atmadja, who earlier ruled in favor of 34 residents whose land was affected by the development of the Kedung Ombo dam in Central Java.

The residents sued the government as they were not satisfied with the compensation, which was only Rp 800 per square meter. They lost their case at both the district and high court levels.

On July 28, 1993, two days before Asikin retired, he made a surprise ruling. Asikin ruled that the government had violated the law by starting construction of the dam in January 1989, which was before the residents had agreed to the compensation offered. Asikin ordered the government to pay a compensation of Rp 50,000 per square meter, or five times the Rp 10,000 per square meter that the residents had been asking. Asikin also ordered the government to pay an extra compensation of Rp 2 billion.

After the Central Java government asked the Supreme Court to review the case, Purwoto set up a five-member panel of justices which he presided over. In less than three months they reached a decision to reverse Asikin's ruling. Purwoto said the government did nothing wrong and that the dam's construction was in the public's interest. Purwoto also said that Asikin's decision had to be annulled because Asikin had given the residents more than they had asked for.

Like Asikin and Purwoto, Soerjono also made his most startling decisions during his last days on the Supreme Court.

On Oct. 25, 1996, five days before retiring, Soerjono, along with Sarwata and Raja Palti Siregar, reversed the Supreme Court ruling on labor activist Muchtar Pakpahan. Soerjono asserted that Pakpahan was guilty and should be sentenced to four years in prison.

In 1994 Pakpahan was sentenced to three years by the Medan District Court for inciting riots. The sentence was increased by the high court but on September 1995 Deputy Chief Justice for Criminal Affairs Adi Andojo Soetjito and justices Tommy Boestomi and Karlina Astuti exonerated Pakpahan. Pakpahan was released, but in .... he was arrested for allegedly masterminding the July 27 riots in Jakarta.

In the Tempo case, Soerjono upset the public with his ruling which annulled the decision made by the Jakarta High Administrative Court.

Tempo magazine "died" in 1994 after the minister of information revoked its publishing license. Its former editor, Goenawan Mohamad, took the case to the Jakarta Administrative Court and won. The high court upheld the decision, but it was annulled by the Supreme Court on June 13, 1996.

In another case, Soerjono issued a letter to ban the execution of a decision which was earlier made by the Supreme Court on a land dispute case between Hanoch Hebe Ohee, a tribal leader in Irian Jaya, and the local government.

Ohee's case began in 1984 when he sued the local government over a 62-hectare plot of land. The Jayapura District Court ruled in favor of Ohee and the decision was upheld by the Irian Jaya High Court. But in 1986 the Supreme Court annulled the ruling, which prompted Ohee to file a request for a case review.

In response to the request, the Supreme Court in 1992 examined the case again and found out that its previous decision was a mistake. The Supreme Court then ordered the Irian Jaya governor and another five government institutions to pay Ohee Rp 18.6 billion.

Ohee tried to get the compensation but was unsuccessful. In 1995 Irian Jaya governor Jacob Pattipi asked Soerjono to delay the execution of the Supreme Court decision. On April 5, 1995, Soerjono issued a letter to cancel the decision. That was the end of Ohee's struggle for justice.

At the administrative level the district court and high court judges are under the Ministry of Justice, technically they are under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

It is not clear, however, to whom the Supreme Court is accountable. Justices are meant to be accountable to their own consciences, but is that enough? Justices should have to answer to the People's Consultative Assembly as the state's highest legislative body, but there is no law to regulate this matter. (sim)