Marsinah case again in spotlight

Marsinah case again in spotlight

Criminologist Mulyana W. Kusumah analyzes the tremendous social reactions to the Marsinah murder case following the recent unprecedented acquital of defendants in the case.

JAKARTA (JP): The recent Supreme Court ruling that acquitted all nine people convicted of complicity in the brutal murder of labor activist Marsinah have received favorable reactions from legal experts, the mass media and other segments of society.

The murder case that drew so much attention from local and foreign media two years ago has again become a hot topic of discussion, albeit in a slightly different political context.

The series of events inside, as well as outside, the legal system, which followed Marsinah's murder, have provided us with truly valuable lessons on the actual way our legal system works, the tendencies of the authorities and the resulting reactions of society as a whole.

First, the conspicuous and determining role of extra-judicial bodies in reconstructing the crime had been played out even before the defendants had the chance to enter the judicial process. The formulation of the background of the crime and its conception had been widely communicated through the mass media and was forced into the administration of criminal justice.

The basic legal procedures that underlay the authority of our judicial system were implemented with the purpose of providing support for the prepared formulation concerning the crime. As a result, the actualization of the potential fulfillment of the procedural aspects faced tough obstacles. Moreover, the efforts to defend the defendants were built up with the help of non- judicial institutions.

The long-lasting public debates surrounding the case, with the full involvement of the mass media, managed to converge all of the currents of social reaction, which basically not only confirmed the official formulation and conception of the crime but also -- with an increasing amount of knowledge available to the community concerning the context of the incident -- led to an almost unanimous decision to turn Marsinah into a legend. Marsinah was a heroine for workers claimed the All-Indonesia Workers Union.

Many other view Marsinah as a sign of labor resistance and as a victim of the politics of violence.

The view that recognizes the existence of the use of violence as part of the strategy to manage and control industrial workers seems more than just the result of an assessment of the murder case solely from its moral angle. It seems to have stemmed from a political perception that sees a conspiracy in the background of the murder of this labor activist.

Social reactions that rejected the constructed version of the crime which had been forced into general acceptance by both the criminal judicial hand and the other hands of authority, became stronger as they were re-articulated based on the findings made by the defense team of Trimulya D. Soerjadi, and his colleagues, the Legal Aid Foundation, the National Commission on Human Rights and a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). However, this process could only go as far as the room for political communication allows, but it could not become a part of the legal process in the hall of justice.

It seems that all the discussion and debates that faded as time went by, and as other more actual legal and political events unfolded, are now resurfacing with the announcement of the Supreme Court ruling ordering the acquittals of all nine convicted persons.

Interpretations of the ruling will not be limited to the legal aspects of the case, such as Article 253, Clause 1 of the Criminal Code, which rules that an investigation based on an appeal is to be conducted by the Supreme Court to determine: (a) whether a given legal procedure has been applied or whether it has been applied in the correct manner; (b) whether the sentencing has been done without following the laws in effect, and (c) whether the court has stepped beyond the boundaries of its authority.

Clearly, public interpretations will not be restricted by the formulation of the contents of the above article. Instead, they will tend to spread wide and become loaded with all sorts of demands.

At the moment, various judgments of, reactions to and interpretations of the ruling have begun to emerge. The chief of the East Java branch of the Agency for the Coordination of Support for the Development of National Stability, Maj. Gen. Imam Utomo, has vowed his support for the police in their search for new suspects. The East Java police have promised to immediately set up a new team to re-investigate the Marsinah case. In the meantime, pressure is heightening from various community groups and NGOs for the police to immediately find the real killer of killers of Marsinah.

The Indonesian police carry a clear institutional responsibility. Now they are burdened by the expectations of the community.

Nevertheless, both moral and institutional efforts to bring about material truth and to fulfill the existing desire for justice are the responsibility of our entire judicial system and all the elements of state authority charged with the task of handling Marsinah's murder case.

The working agenda for the police in solving the case should be carried out in a more open manner in order to turn all the expectations into helpful support. This support may come in the form of new data, facts, or a new reconstruction of the crime.

The writer is a lecturer of criminology at the University of Indonesia and Executive Director of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation.