The Supreme Court's ambiguous ruling

The Supreme Court's ambiguous ruling

The long-awaited decision has been given. The Supreme Court,
the highest judiciary authority in this country, has, as was
expected, delivered an ambiguous ruling. It returned to Habibie
the right the decide whether Cabinet ministers should be allowed
to campaign for parties contesting the upcoming general election.
As regards the General Elections Commission, the Supreme Court
had courage enough to bar commission members from either
campaigning or nominating themselves as candidates for the
legislature.

The Supreme Court, which people have often accused of being
insensitive to the state of justice in this country, smoothly
listed all the laws, chapters and articles relevant to the
considerations underlying its ruling. As far as those
considerations concerned aspects of legal logic and terminology,
the Supreme Court did indeed sound quite judicious in formulating
its decision.

In the name of our shared aspiration for a fair and honest
election, we commend the Supreme Court for barring members of the
General Elections Commission from campaigning -- even though
President Habibie earlier had allowed them to do so. If those
champions of justice on the Supreme Court also had barred Cabinet
ministers from campaigning, President Habibie certainly would
have thought a thousand times before rejecting such a ruling.

The Supreme Court, in this case, not only showed itself
insensitive to the people's cry for justice; this country's last
bastion of justice also showed that it still sees itself as a
servant to those in power. The Supreme Court, which should have
shown us there are limits to the powers of a president, instead
strengthened the old concept that a president's powers are
unlimited.

-- Media Indonesia, Jakarta