Thursday, July 30, 2009

Prita's Case Carries On .......


Prita Mulyasari, mother of 2 infants, was arrested and charged with Defamation for sending e-mails to her friends complaining about the terrible services of the Omni International Hospital in Tangerang.

After very strong supports shown by bloggers via online social media, and presidential candidates, on 25 June the District Court of Tangerang passed an Interlocutory Verdict that released her from the charges. As a reaction, the Prosecutor filed an Appeal against this Verdict, with the Banten High Court.

On 27 July, the Banten High Court accepted the Appeal and canceled the Interlocutory Verdict of the Tangerang District Court. According to the Chairman of the Banten High Court Sumarno, the High Court considered that the Electronic Information & Transaction Law No. 11/2008 Art. 54 (1) stated that the law is valid since the date of its promulgation and Art. 54(2) which stated that it would be valid not later than 2 years afterwards.
This is contradictory to the District Court’s interpretation of Art. 54(2) i.e should be valid two years afterward. Beside that, Sumarno said that the District Court did not pay attention to the other basis of prosecution i.e. Defamation based on Penal Code Art. 310 & Art. 311.

In reaction to the High Court’s verdict, Prita told news reporters that she was shocked but she will follow the court proceedings till the end.
And the Tangerang District Attorney said that they are ready to carry on with the Court proceedings, but do not know yet when will the trial start again.

For details on the above, please click here, here, and here.

Photo: Courtesy of Detik

10 comments:

Lidia said...

I'll support what prita's doing cause she represent some innocent people out there....Go...go....prita !! vi$it you today w/ $mile......have a great weekend tomorrow......

Harry Nizam H. said...

Lidia ...
Yes we must support her.
Thank you for your beautiful smile.
Have a wonderful weekend.

Victor A. Bueno M. said...

Thank you for your help in making the web the channel that empowers people so they can circumvent "oficial communication channels" that are controlled by the rich and their abettors every where

Harry Nizam H. said...

Victor ...
You are most welcome, it's an honor to have you here.
Thank you for your kind words

Hossam Shawky said...

Nice blog wish you visit mine http://marragiefun.blogspot.com/

Harry Nizam H. said...

Hossam ...
Thank you for your kind words, I will visit yours ASAP.

Edwin said...

Everybody has gone too far with UU 11/2008 to suppress Prita. Real less to do with it. We all must have forgotten UU 8/1999 (Consumer Protection). It is absolutely Prita who deserves the treat with this constitution.. She has been taken out all this time..

Harry Nizam H. said...

Edwin ..
You are right

Rob Baiton said...

Harry...

I am not sure that the consumer protection law is intended to be a total defense to defamation.

Yes, I would agree that there are consumer protection issues here. If one wants to rely on the consumer protection provisions, then it would be fair to make an analysis of whether as a consumer Prita's actions fall within the parameters of the Consumer Protection Law.

Clearly there is a right to complain. The analysis that I am suggesting is whether or not there are limitations as to how these complaints can be made?

The Constitution is supposed to protect everyone, and in a perfect world it might. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world (at least not yet!).

Harry Nizam H. said...

Rob ...
Consumer Protection Law Art. 4(d)defined that Consumer's Right is a right to have its opinion and complain,about goods/services, heard.
While ITE Law Art. 27(3) stated
that violation of this law should be committed "without any right".
Considering the above, Prita as a consumer has a right to complain, and cannot be charged based on this law.
She used harsh words (Fraud/Tipu)
because the hospital refused to . It is understandable for a person who has 2 small kids & facing critical health condition to be very emotional.
Our Constitution Art. 28E(2&3) guarantee freedom of expression either verbally or in writing.