Loss of trust a threat to security

By Arief Budiman

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Attorney General Singgih told a House hearing early last month that he would ask the Supreme Court to allow him to reopen and review any cases that might "endanger state security."

He was referring, more specifically, to the case of labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan, who was cleared of all charges by the Supreme Court in September 1995. The Attorney General's Office later asked the Supreme Court to review the case. Last October, the court overturned its previous decision and declared Pakpahan guilty. Pakpahan was reincarcerated and sentenced to serve out the remainder of his original term.

There are several problems with this case. The first is whether the Attorney General's Office has the legal right to reopen a case that has already been heard and ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Under the Criminal Code, only the defendants and their beneficiaries are entitled to do so. However, according to Singgih, because the law does not explicitly prohibit the prosecution from requesting a trial review, it is therefore possible. Many prominent lawyers disagree, but the Attorney General's Office will continue to follow this procedure. Strangely, the Supreme Court agrees with this interpretation.

It is not my intention to discuss the issue above. What interests me more is the statement that public prosecutors should be allowed to ask for the review of cases that "endanger state security." What constitutes a danger to state security? What are the criteria? And who, or which institution, has the right to determine if a case threatens state security?

Did the release of Pakpahan by the Supreme Court pose a danger to state security? I and many others would have to disagree. The ruling strengthened the state by upholding justice and the rule of law. It is common knowledge that Pakpahan was not involved in the Medan workers riot in April 1994. His statements, asking workers to strike, were made in other places before the riot happened. The statements were not libelous because there was no direct connection between the Medan riot and his campaign as a union leader. This was the basis of Supreme Court Judge Adi Andojo's decision to set Pakpahan free.

When he was set free, the public regained its belief that a responsible judicial system exists in this country. The public felt the same relief when Dwi Samijo, the man the police accused of killing Yogyakarta journalist Udin, was released in December 1996 because there was not enough evidence to prove that he was behind the murder. In these two cases, the state was again strengthened because it regained the public's trust.

But the Attorney General's Office does not agree. Its decision to ask for a review, and Pakpahan's subsequent return to prison, will erode confidence in the legal system, especially the Supreme Court. So who really is endangering state security?

This is one of the most serious problems facing the country. Who has the authority to pass final judgment? In almost all cases, it is government officials.

In another instance, Lt. Gen. Syarwan Hamid was reported as saying that "promoting human rights protection should not be done at the expense of the greater interest of the state" (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 20, 1996). Again we must ask: Who is it that defines "the greater interest of the state?"

There is an international precedent. Alfred Dreyfus (1859- 1935), a Jewish French army officer, was sentenced to life imprisonment for treason in 1894. He was found innocent two years later, but to not dishonor the French Army, another trial was reopened in 1896. He was then sentenced to 10 years. A public campaign, which involved the famous writer Emile Zola, was launched and he was finally declared innocent in 1906. The decision helped the French, and people around the world, place more trust in the judicial system of this country. A mistake was made but it was still possible to correct it.

We experienced something similar in the case of Marsinah, a female worker killed in May 1993. Some people were arrested, tortured and forced to admit to what they had been accused of. They were sentenced to several years in prison. However, they were released after many in the public protested in their defense. A higher court found them not guilty, but the real killer has yet to be found.

In both the Marsinah and Udin cases, there is a strong suspicion that public officials were involved in the killings, making any arrests that much more difficult. As in the Dreyfus case, "the greater interest of the state" is at stake.

Some believe Marsinah was killed accidentally by the state security apparatus, while Udin was killed by a public servant to protect private "business" interests. In the end, many expect the Udin case to end like Marsinah's -- with no pursuit of justice, for the sake of the greater interest of the state.

It is dangerous if "the greater interest of the state" is not defined properly. If not interpreted democratically, it risks being monopolized by the state and misused by certain individuals or groups in high public office.

This is also the problem with Pancasila. It is not so much whether we agree or disagree with the content of the state ideology. It is a matter of who monopolizes the interpretation, and how. When one is accused of being anti-Pancasila because he or she has a different idea about how to run the country, who has the right to declare this person anti-Pancasila?

General wisdom would be to take the case to court, where a final judgment can be made. If only it were that simple. The legal system and courts are vulnerable to government intervention, and will be as long as the government keeps enforcing its interpretations of "endangering state security," "the greater interest of the state," and the notion of "anti- Pancasila." The people have no power to resist and are losing their faith in the possibility of having a responsible and trustworthy state.

It is this that truly endangers state security.

The writer is a sociologist and researcher based in Salatiga.