The Kedungombo decision

The joy of the 34 Kedungombo farmers, who won a legal battle against the Central Java provincial government last July, has turned out to be short-lived. Only three months. The other day, in a very surprising decision, the Supreme Court announced that it had annulled its own previous verdict, and was now ruling in favor of the government.

The new decision unquestionably will raise some questions, because it is highly unusual for the Supreme Court to annul its own decision in such a short time. Indeed, seen from any point of view, the Kedungombo case is bizarre. From the very beginning one could see a number of "strange" matters evolving in this case.

Last July it was made public that in July 1993, curiously a whole year before, the Supreme Court had ruled that the government must pay Rp 50,000 for each square meter of land formerly owned by 34 farmers, which was used for the Kedungombo dam, plus Rp 2 billion for the non-material losses incurred.

The farmers were among the thousands of families who lived on a 6,700 hectare plot of land which they had to abandon when the government started the Kedungombo reservoir project, financed by the World Bank, in 1990.

The Supreme Court's initial ruling sent shockwaves through the bureaucracy. Some government officials, notably Central Java Governor Soewardi and Central Java Military Commander Maj. Gen. Soejono, were reportedly furious over the verdict. Later, Chief Justice Purwoto reportedly met with President Soeharto to explain the decision. And immediately, only a few days after the ruling became public knowledge, the Central Java Provincial Government filed for a review and a new trial.

And now, within three months, a new verdict has been made. Curiously, the reversed decision was announced by outgoing Chief Justice Purwoto Gandasubrata on the day he handed over the post to his successor Soerjono. Purwoto, who took part in the five member team which annulled the previous decision, was replaced as chief justice on Nov. 1.

According to Purwoto, the Supreme Court's earlier decision was faulty because the presiding judges set the compensation rate higher then the people's claim. Beside that, the Supreme Court failed to take into account a 1993 presidential decree on setting a compensation rate for land acquired by the government, and based its decision on a 1975 ministerial decree which had been superseded by the 1993 ruling.

While we don't question the legal procedures behind the new decision, one could not help but wonder why the Supreme Court has so suddenly become capable of moving in such a speedy manner by making a new verdict within three months, while the backlog of thousands of appeal cases reportedly has hampered the activities of the Supreme Court for years.

The fact that the new verdict was made just two days before Purwoto's retirement has given rise to the impression that somehow the two are related. In short, all these circumstances make it difficult for us to shake off the vague notion that somehow there is something odd behind the Supreme Court's about face.

Of course, one could assume that the new verdict may have been motivated by a concern, in the part of the government, that a decision in favor of the displaced farmers could influence hundreds of other recalcitrant villagers, who were also forcibly evicted in 1990 to make way for the dam, to sue the government, thus creating a giant problem for the government.

Hence, we think some sort of explanation should be made to assure the public that there is nothing unusual behind the new decision. After all it concerns the integrity of the Supreme Court, one of our most respected pillars of the state.