Lawyers have to remain professional

Little progress has been made in the police's attempt to find Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, son of former president Soeharto, while more controversy has arisen with the questioning of Tommy's lawyer for allegedly misleading the police. The following is an excerpt from an interview with noted lawyer Nursyahbani Katjasungkana.

Question: Could you comment on the questioning of lawyer Juan Felix Tampubolon in regard to information he gave police concerning the underground bunker at Tommy's home?

Answer: Anyone has the potential to violate the law. (But) there needs to be some criteria to declare that someone has violated a ruling. In the case of Juan Felix, all lawyers will try to do their best to defend their clients because their clients pay them to do so.

But the way lawyers handle a case has something to do with professionalism and ethics. There are rules to obey.

Lawyers must not tell lies about their clients, but this also depends on the condition that their clients do not lie to them.

When lawyers do not know something about their clients because their clients have not told them, nobody can force the lawyers to say something.

Q: How do you see the role of the lawyers in Tommy's case?

A: We have to know the duties of lawyers or legal advisors. As advisors they have to advise clients to obey the law. Therefore it is not right if a lawyer advises a client, for instance, to flee.

Nonetheless, there must be professional distance between lawyers and their clients. I don't see such professionalism between Tommy or the Soeharto family and the lawyers.

In the case of Tommy, it was not quite right when one of Tommy's lawyers said that he knew where Tommy was but that his client refused to go to jail because there was no guarantee for his safety.

At that time, however, Tommy and his lawyers might have been confused whether to request a review of his case or file an appeal for clemency from the President. Because both actions are very different. Requesting a review means he must go to jail first. Filing an appeal for clemency would mean an admittance of guilt.

But by protecting Tommy at that time, it was obvious that the lawyers were attempting to halt the execution (of arrest).

How do you see the contribution of the poor judiciary system to developments of this case?

Once, I learned about a verdict from the media even before it was made known (to my client). Regardless of pressure from any party, I know the prosecutor's office is too slow in anticipating any possibilities, so that's why Tommy could escape.

Q: What impacts does this case have on lawyers?

A: There are positive and negative impacts.

The positive impact is that legal advisors must learn from this case in that they must always work professionally and proportionally. Second, legal advisors should also learn how to handle cases loaded with political nuances.

The negative impact is that the police may easily accuse lawyers for hiding something when in fact lawyers are not lying.

Q: With respect to the interrogation of Juan Felix, do you think he can be named a suspect?

A: As I said, everyone has the potential to violate the law. But in his case there should be solid evidence. I don't think the police can use Article 216 of the Criminal Code, which they invoked to interrogate Juan Felix, because the article refers to the main suspect, in this case, Tommy, and not Juan.

It is likely that (Juan Felix) really did not have any idea (about the bunker). This means that there should first be evidence to prove that he told lies, or whether it was his client who provided him with misleading information.

Q: Have you ever experienced clients providing you with misleading information?

A: In the mid 1980s I was legal advisor for a man accused of robbery. I later learned that it was a hoax. I withdrew from the case immediately when I found out he was lying.

The then chairman of the Honor Council for Ethics in the Legal Profession and the Indonesian Bar Association (Ikadin) vehemently rebuked me because it is not ethical to abandon clients during court hearings.

But I decided to quit the case. I could not defend someone who had told me lies. My client could have complained about my resignation to the council, but he did not. (I. Christianto)