Marzuki questions PRD trial verdicts

The court verdicts meted to nine activists of the Democratic People's Party (PRD) charged with subversion, ranging between 18 months to 13 years of imprisonment, have come as a surprise to many. Vice Chairman of the National Commission on Human Rights Marzuki Darusman ponders the issue.

Question: How do you perceive the verdict?

Answer: The severe verdicts show that there was nothing new about the case. It was a case of expressing an opinion in public which was charged with the Subversion Law. A further examination is needed to see whether the trial involved unfairness. As far as I could see, the court failed to bring in expert witnesses. This convinces me that I have to study the case carefully.

Are you saying that you don't have an argument to say whether or not the PRD trial was a fair one?

My first impression was that the verdict was greater than what was previously expected and what it should have been.

The use of the Subversion Law in the trial was improper partly because its legal basis was not in line with basic human rights principles. Many people have been questioning the use of the law.

Can you point out the improper use of the law in the case?

The law, as you see, is very flexible. It has a very wide range of interpretation that can be easily interpreted into anything to support either the government's or the court's interest. Using this as a legal basis, anything can be categorized as subversive. It, therefore, is unable to protect human rights. In other words, the law contains injustice. As a result, as many analysts and experts have also been saying, verdicts based on such a law imply unfairness.

Can their activities be categorized as undermining the state ideology Pancasila?

I haven't seen any indication that they (PRD activists) rejected Pancasila's principles. What they have are just specific programs. Nevertheless, how they perceive politics, as well as democracy, is within the scope of Pancasila's concept.

I'm sure people do not understand why they were sentenced so severely, given the fact that even Bung Karno (the first Indonesian president Sukarno), when he was tried for fighting Dutch colonialism, was only given four years imprisonment.

It seems like there is something that the government is after from the trial. The sentence did more than just punish some activists. It served as a warning to others. It's surprising for such pro-democracy activities, they received very severe terms.

Could it have something to do with the coming election?

Had it had something to do with it, it certainly shouldn't have been done. But there seems to have been a prepared political element behind it. It's actually not surprising because whenever the Subversion Law is used, there has to be something political.

Could strong reactions from other countries towards the verdict, like the one given by the U.S. government, help reduce the sentences at an appeal level?

I'm not sure about that, but one thing for sure is that Indonesians are very much concerned about the case. Their sense of justice is touched. They feel there is something unjust.

Is there anything that people can do to prevent the recurrence of what they've perceived as an unfair trial?

They have to express their opinions. They can make use of the media. Regardless of the effectiveness of the media in expressing such opinion, the people's voice must be heard anyway. This should be done continuously.

What will the commission do about it?

It's very obvious that the case deserves further study. We need to know whether the trial was conducted fairly. We need to observe whether the principle of presumption of innocence had been applied. We also apply the principle in studying the case. We are motivated by our sense of justice, nothing else.

What we have acquired so far has only been from the media. We have not yet received any complaint or request for investigation, either from the defendants or their families. Nevertheless, the commission has the right to take initiative when there is indication of any violation. This case belongs in this category.

You said the Subversion Law gives no protection to human rights. What has the commission done about it?

Since February last year, we have been asking the government to repeal the Subversion Law, but no reply has been sent to us.

It's worth noting that what we want the government to do is repeal the substance of the Subversion Law, not the application of a subversion law in the country.

We understand that every government needs such a law to protect its interests. It's a common principle. For example, the government could use a national security law, instead of the Subversion Law. (swa)