Pakpahan to file request for a trial review

JAKARTA (JP): Labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan will file a request for a trial review with the Supreme Court next week to contest the court's recent ruling that sent him back to prison.

Alamsyah Hamdani, one of his lawyers in Medan, told The Jakarta Post by phone yesterday they would file the request on Monday or Tuesday.

Pakpahan, chairman of the unrecognized Indonesian Prosperous Labor Union, was sentenced to three years in jail in November 1994 for inciting riots in Medan. The high court increased the sentence to four years.

But he was later released from jail after a three-member panel of Supreme Court justices led by Adi Andojo Soetjipto exonerated him from all charges after finding there had been insufficient evidence to punish Pakpahan.

Former chief justice Soerjono with colleagues Sarwata and Radja Palti Siregar, however, overturned Andojo's decision last October after they found mistakes in the implementation of the law. Soerjono made the decision on Oct. 25, just five days before he retired and was replaced by Sarwata.

Pakpahan, who refused to sign the ruling Monday, is detained in Jakarta's Cipinang prison and facing subversion charges for his alleged attempt to undermine the legitimate government.

Separately, Pakpahan's lawyer in Jakarta Luthfie M. Hakim told the Post his client refused to sign the controversial ruling because he intended to seek a trial review.

"We believe there was a mistake made by the panel of justices who meted out last October's ruling," Luthfie said.

Many legal experts have said the trial review was unprecedented, because Criminal Code Procedures stipulate that only a defendant or his beneficiaries can request a trial review from the Supreme Court.

Unfair

Meanwhile, a professor of law from the Semarang-based Diponegoro University, Soehardjo S.S, said it would be just fine if Pakpahan sought a trial review. But, he said he believed there was nothing wrong with the Oct. 25 ruling.

According to Soehardjo, a former legislator from the ruling Golkar party between 1982 and 1987, said that granting the prosecutors' request for a trial review was not in violation of Criminal Code Procedures.

The Medan prosecutors filed a review because they believed Andojo's ruling was legally defective, he said, adding that Pakpahan's exoneration was "unfair" because dozens of other activists tried in the same case had been punished.

Separately, J.E. Sahetapy of the Surabaya-based Airlangga University said if, for instance, three of five people tried for the same crime were found guilty, then the remaining two should also be guilty.

"The judge cannot rule a defendant guilty if evidence is insufficient," said the professor of law.

Sahetapy said the Supreme Court's present leadership should learn from the Pakpahan affair to put their house in order. (08)