The face of justice

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.