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