Memorandum can't say President is guilty

JAKARTA (JP): Legal experts deemed that the findings of the special committee of the House of Representatives (DPR) on President Abdurrahman Wahid's involvement in two financial scandals are not sufficient to say the President is guilty.

However, there are still debates on whether to proceed with the political process or the legal proceedings, as recommended by the House, in order to follow up the findings.

Supreme Court justice Muladi said that the findings can only be taken as information for investigators, including the police and state prosecutors, as legislators are not authorized to carry out an investigation.

"The findings fail to fulfill legal procedures, they only meet political and moral standards. The investigators should gather more evidence to complete it," he said on Wednesday.

"I'm not defending Gus Dur. I'm talking about the supremacy of the law. Gus Dur is still a witness to the case and should be investigated under the principle of being innocent until proven guilty," he quickly added, referring to the President by his nickname.

Speaking after a discussion on legal aspects of the press, Muladi said that further investigation into the House's findings should be in line with several cases which have now been brought to trial since they are closely related.

Gus Dur is allegedly involved in corruption involving the State Logistics Agency (Bulog), dubbed as Buloggate, in which prime suspects former Bulog deputy chairman Sapuan and Gus Dur's former masseur Alip Agung Suwondo have both been brought to trial.

"People should view the handling of the two cases as complementary to Gus Dur's case. If Sapuan and Suwondo were found not guilty by judges and if this verdict is then later corroborated by the Supreme Court, then accusations over Gus Dur should automatically be dropped," Muladi argued.

Commenting on police efforts to seek the Supreme Court's advice on measures that could be taken by force to follow up the House's findings, Muladi said that the police have done the right thing.

"Although the Supreme Court's fatwa (direction) is not legally binding, it can be treated as guidance for police investigation. For example, Gus Dur may be probed without being initially suspended and that the investigation can take place at the presidential palace," he explained.

Inconsistent

Chairman of the Indonesian Judicial Watch, Todung Mulya Lubis, argued that legal proceedings should be delayed until the political process had ended because there are still inconsistencies in the House's recommendation.

"On the one hand, the House allows four months as provided by it's two censure memoranda for Gus Dur to make necessary corrections to his administration and if the House finds them unsatisfactory then there should be a special session of the state's highest body, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR).

"But, the House has also ordered legal proceedings which cannot be completed during the first three months given in the first memorandum. So the question is, can the second memorandum be issued after the first three months?," Todung told journalists after the same discussion.

Moreover, he said, there is no way that a sitting president will face any legal proceedings as the constitution has yet to regulate such an issue.

If legal action is to be taken against a member of the Assembly, the investigators should ask for the President's approval. In the case of Gus Dur, if he is questioned, it is not clear, who should give the approval, according to Todung.

Todung said this lack of legal certainty could be used by Gus Dur's lawyers to escape investigation.

"It's really been a political matter right from the start. Even if it was shifted to become a legal matter the issue is stated under constitutional law whether the President can be questioned or not," he added.

Todung also said that even if legal measures were not taken, the public can asses whether Gus Dur is innocent or not from the judges verdict on the suspects of the case.

Separately on Tuesday night, Attorney General Marzuki Darusman affirmed that the political process would not affect the prosecutors' work.

"We cannot wait until political processes end. Right now, we are investigating whether there is a crime in the case.

"The Attorney General's Office will not question the President as a president, but if there was a crime, we'll see if it was committed by the President in his capacity as the top leader or an individual," he said.(bby)