Team to be set up to examine Court's ruling on Tommy

Team to be set up to examine Court's ruling on Tommy

Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

A number of watchdogs and the Indonesian Bar Association
intend to establish a team to examine the Supreme Court's
decision to exonerate former president Soeharto's son Hutomo
"Tommy" Mandala Putra" of corruption charges.

"The team will be assigned to examine the decision on the case
and the justices," Wasingatu Zakiah of the Indonesian Corruption
Watch (ICW) told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday.

"We expect the Supreme Court to establish such a team as
well," she said.

The judicial review on the case against former president
Soeharto's son Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra was the first high-
profile case handled by Supreme Court deputy chief justice M.
Taufiq during his nine years of service.

Taufiq's decision to overturn an earlier ruling by the Supreme
Court that sentenced Tommy to 18 months in prison made headlines
earlier this week. Taufiq reiterated that the decision to
overturn the verdict was the best the panel could do.

Taufiq said on Tuesday that the previous panel of justices was
wrong to sentence Tommy. Tommy fled in November last year after
the court announced its verdict.

The panel's presiding judge Syafiuddin Kartasasmita was
murdered in August.

Taufiq has said that he is ready to lose his post to defend
his decision. "To be honest, I would prefer being condemned to
getting myself killed," he said.

Wasingatu explained that according to the watchdog's records,
Taufiq has intervened at least three times in the execution of
lower court rulings.

The intervention reportedly occurred in the form of personal
memos issued as the "acting" Supreme Court chief justice to the
judges.

One of the cases involved a conflict between state electricity
company PLN and PT Enico National Development. The other two
involved land disputes.

Separately, retired Supreme Court justice Adi Andojo Sutjipto
said that the court's chief justice should be held responsible
for not weighing the qualifications of justices entrusted with
special cases such as judicial reviews.

"The process itself has a flaw, so the ruling also has a
question mark," he told the Post.