The 'Tempo' verdict

The 'Tempo' verdict

The Supreme Court yesterday overturned a decision pronounced
last November by the Jakarta Administrative High Court, which
ordered Minister of Information Harmoko to issue a permit
allowing the news magazine, Tempo, to resume publication.

The Supreme Court ruled that the revocation of Tempo's
publishing permit is not the same as a ban, which is illegal
under the 1966 Press Law. Thus Minister Harmoko's decision to
revoke the permit cannot be qualified as an arbitrary act.

For many the verdict came as no surprise at all. They had
predicted that in the current political situation there was no
chance of Tempo reappearing. For one thing, according to this
argument, allowing Tempo to resume publication would not only
cause the government to lose face but would also have encouraged
other people to follow suit. It also could have damaged the
government's reputation and eventually disrupted national
stability. Therefore, the argument goes, members of the press
should remain under control and behave lest they have their
permits revoked.

What comes as a surprise is the Supreme Court's ruling that a
revocation and a ban are not the same thing. For many, the ruling
is just the twisting of legal terminology. The revocation of a
publishing permit is nothing but a ban, which means that the
affected publication is forced to close.

Understandably, several critics have commented that the
verdict is nothing but a political decision. But does this imply
that the independence of the Supreme Court, which is perceived as
the last bastion of justice in our country, has been subordinated
to politics?

Frankly speaking, this is a difficult question to answer. But
the fact remains that over the last several years more and more
people have begun to question the integrity of the current
Supreme Court. The issue of collusion on the Supreme Court that
was raised recently by Deputy Chief Justice Adi Andojo, and later
denied officially by Chief Justice Soerjono, has caused
considerable damage to the Court's reputation. The Tempo verdict
will undoubtedly aggravate the situation.

But does this mean that we should lose our faith in our
judicial system?

We do not think so. The fact that the Jakarta Administrative
Court and the Jakarta Administrative High Court had the guts to
defy the powers that be and to declare that the minister of
information's banning of Tempo was illegal, shows that there are
still judges with the courage to challenge the system.

One should also remember that both sides -- former chief
editor of Tempo Goenawan Mohamad and Minister of Information
Harmoko -- from the very beginning agreed to settle the matter in
court, and that both agreed to respect the ruling of the Supreme
Court. Now the verdict has been handed down. Disappointed with it
as one may be, one should respect it and accept it as a product
of the current system.

One might also regard the verdict as a reminder to the media
here that the years of living dangerously still prevail.
Regardless, this should not discourage the media from continuing
with its honorable duty or from striving for greater freedom of
expression.

Whatever the case, Tempo is history now. For many of its
faithful readers, it will be remembered as a fine news magazine
which served them for 23 years with quality and enlightening
reports. In the end it succumbed to the will of a political
system. It tried to contest the decision and succeeded by winning
two battles in court, though it ultimately lost in the third.

Yet this does not mean that the war has been lost. In the
struggle for more democracy and press freedom, there is no end to
the journey.