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.