Team to be set up to examine Supreme 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 July.

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.