The face of justice

Chief Justice Sarwata could not have started his term in the Supreme Court at a worse moment. He assumed his job this month when the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court have been questioned. Its image has already taken a severe beating, especially these past few months, over allegations of a corruption scandal. But barely a month into his job, Sarwata must now deal with another issue that has raised new questions about the honor of the country's highest court.

We are referring to the Supreme Court's ruling on the State vs. Muchtar Pakpahan, in which it reversed its own decision and then ruled in favor of the state, condemning the labor leader to prison.

Reversing its own ruling is rare, but not unprecedented in the Supreme Court's history. This is the second publicly known occurrence for Soerjono, the chief justice who reversed the Muchtar Pakpahan case in the last days of his tenure. His first reversal came last year, when he ruled in favor of the Irian Jaya provincial administration in a land dispute. The reversal in the latest case was signed in late October by Soerjono and two other justices, including Sarwata, who was then deputy chief justice.

What is most astonishing about this affair is that the Court agreed to take on a government prosecutor's request to review the case. Normally, such requests come from defendants. Taking on a government prosecutor's request in a criminal case is unheard of.

This is not the kind of groundbreaking initiative that people had expected from the Supreme Court to restore its image and regain people's trust in the legal system.

Muchtar has seen his luck in the court battle change course several times. First, the Medan District Court found him guilty of inciting a workers' riot in the North Sumatran city in 1994. He received three years. He appealed, but the North Sumatra High Court not only upheld the verdict, it added one year to his prison term. On appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted him of all charges. Then came the reversal, with the Supreme Court upholding the High Court ruling and condemning the labor leader to four years imprisonment. This decision is apparently final.

Soerjono no doubt has furnished strong legal reasons in deciding to reverse the Supreme Court's previous ruling. These arguments are now the subject of debate among legal experts.

To the cynical layperson, the reversal shows the power the government has over the country's highest court. To many who have been following the Supreme Court's inner conflicts, the reversal is seen as the latest in the personal battle between Soerjono and Adi Andojo Soetjipto. Justice Adi, whose decision it was to acquit Muchtar, was the one who alerted the public about alleged corruption practices in the Supreme Court. It is public knowledge that the two senior justices were not on good terms.

The real reasons behind the reversal might never be known. But whatever they are, the move is a bad precedent, one that could have negative repercussions for the Court and the legal system.

The reversal has virtually thrown the Supreme Court's door wide open for every one, plaintiffs and defendants alike, to fight their court battles all the way up to the Supreme Court. They will do this not necessarily in the quest for justice, but more in the hope that the Court could flip-flop again. They will not take seriously the decisions in the district court, the high court or even the first ruling by the Supreme Court. They know that there is always hope of winning in the case review. The Supreme Court will no longer be the last bastion of justice, it will become the only bastion for justice, at least on earth.

At a time when the Supreme Court is already struggling to clear up a huge backlog of cases -- estimates range from 14,000 to 20,000 -- the last thing the Court wants is more and more court cases being thrown at its door. The reversal in the Muchtar Pakpahan case, unfortunately, has done just this.

The challenge facing the new chief justice is big indeed.