Dian Kuswandini, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 09/12/2008 10:49 AM | National
The Judicial Commission said Thursday it would review a court decision which ruled for conglomerate Asian Agri Group (AAG) in a defamation case against Tempo magazine.
Commission chair M. Busyro Muqoddas said his office would summon the panel of judges after it finished reviewing their verdict.
"We will investigate the judges who issued the verdict. If we find they made their decision without impartiality or otherwise violated the code of ethics, we'll recommend the Supreme Court discipline them," he said.
The Central Jakarta District Court on Tuesday convicted Tempo of defaming AAG and its subsidiaries in an investigative report alleging the company evaded taxes, which was published by the magazine in January 2007.
The court also ordered Tempo to pay Rp 50 million (US$5,250) in damages and to publish a full-page apology to the conglomerate in the magazine and in the Koran Tempo and Kompas dailies in three consecutive editions.
In response to the verdict, the Tempo editorial board and its lawyers filed a report Thursday with the Judicial Commission, saying the verdict had ignored many facts supporting the magazine's side in the case.
Tempo lawyer Hendrayana from the Legal Aid Institute for the Press said the judges had been wrong when they had blamed Tempo for publishing AAG's reply to the critical article a full year after the report was first published.
"The fact is that Asian Agri exercised its right to reply 11 months and 28 days after the article was published," he argued.
The company sent its response on Dec. 21, 2007, to which Tempo responded only five days later, he added.
"We then consulted with the Indonesian Press Council on Dec. 27, and they declared Asian Agri's right to reply had expired, saying any complaint must be filed within two months," Hendrayana said.
He said Tempo had been about to publish the version of AAG's complaint that came out of mediation sessions with the council, but the conglomerate's lawyer Hinca Pandjaitan suddenly pulled his client out of the mediation.
The magazine also rejected the judges' claim that its article was biased and unfair as it only highlighted statements from one source.
"In fact, Tempo did include a two-page interview with AAG's president director Eddy Lukas in the same edition," Hendrayana said.
He further argued that Article 310 of the Criminal Code and Article 1376 of the Civil Law do not recognize an act as defamation as long as it is intended for the public good.
Hendrayana also said the judges had unjustly refused to accept into evidence testimonies by officials from the Finance Ministry's taxation directorate general and the Corruption Eradication Commission, who all confirmed the tax evasion evidence against AAG.
"The judges also ruled Tempo had denied the presumption of innocence principle because it had reported a tax evasion case before a binding verdict. This threatens the press and prevents the public from getting information about corruption cases," he added.
Busyro Muqoddas similarly rejected the judges' claims as unacceptable.
"This ruling countermands the principles of transparency any state institution should uphold. There's no way the media can wait until court verdicts come down before they can report on corruption cases," he said, adding it would destroy the press as an instrument of democracy.
Asian Agri owner Sukanto Tanoto, who heads one of the richest conglomerates in the country, had won an earlier defamation suit against Tempo's subsidiary Koran Tempo in July 2008.
In that case the South Jakarta District Court ordered the daily to pay Rp 220.3 million in damages to Sukanto Tanoto's PT Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper.
The Judicial Commission said Thursday it would review a court decision which ruled for conglomerate Asian Agri Group (AAG) in a defamation case against Tempo magazine.
Commission chair M. Busyro Muqoddas said his office would summon the panel of judges after it finished reviewing their verdict.
"We will investigate the judges who issued the verdict. If we find they made their decision without impartiality or otherwise violated the code of ethics, we'll recommend the Supreme Court discipline them," he said.
The Central Jakarta District Court on Tuesday convicted Tempo of defaming AAG and its subsidiaries in an investigative report alleging the company evaded taxes, which was published by the magazine in January 2007.
The court also ordered Tempo to pay Rp 50 million (US$5,250) in damages and to publish a full-page apology to the conglomerate in the magazine and in the Koran Tempo and Kompas dailies in three consecutive editions.
In response to the verdict, the Tempo editorial board and its lawyers filed a report Thursday with the Judicial Commission, saying the verdict had ignored many facts supporting the magazine's side in the case.
Tempo lawyer Hendrayana from the Legal Aid Institute for the Press said the judges had been wrong when they had blamed Tempo for publishing AAG's reply to the critical article a full year after the report was first published.
"The fact is that Asian Agri exercised its right to reply 11 months and 28 days after the article was published," he argued.
The company sent its response on Dec. 21, 2007, to which Tempo responded only five days later, he added.
"We then consulted with the Indonesian Press Council on Dec. 27, and they declared Asian Agri's right to reply had expired, saying any complaint must be filed within two months," Hendrayana said.
He said Tempo had been about to publish the version of AAG's complaint that came out of mediation sessions with the council, but the conglomerate's lawyer Hinca Pandjaitan suddenly pulled his client out of the mediation.
The magazine also rejected the judges' claim that its article was biased and unfair as it only highlighted statements from one source.
"In fact, Tempo did include a two-page interview with AAG's president director Eddy Lukas in the same edition," Hendrayana said.
He further argued that Article 310 of the Criminal Code and Article 1376 of the Civil Law do not recognize an act as defamation as long as it is intended for the public good.
Hendrayana also said the judges had unjustly refused to accept into evidence testimonies by officials from the Finance Ministry's taxation directorate general and the Corruption Eradication Commission, who all confirmed the tax evasion evidence against AAG.
"The judges also ruled Tempo had denied the presumption of innocence principle because it had reported a tax evasion case before a binding verdict. This threatens the press and prevents the public from getting information about corruption cases," he added.
Busyro Muqoddas similarly rejected the judges' claims as unacceptable.
"This ruling countermands the principles of transparency any state institution should uphold. There's no way the media can wait until court verdicts come down before they can report on corruption cases," he said, adding it would destroy the press as an instrument of democracy.
Asian Agri owner Sukanto Tanoto, who heads one of the richest conglomerates in the country, had won an earlier defamation suit against Tempo's subsidiary Koran Tempo in July 2008.
In that case the South Jakarta District Court ordered the daily to pay Rp 220.3 million in damages to Sukanto Tanoto's PT Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper.
