During the trial of Nunun Nurbaeti at the Jakarta Anti-Corruption Court last Monday, the Prosecutors of the Commission for Eradication of Corruption (KPK) demanded the Court to punish her to four years in Jail, pay Rp 200 Million Fine, and Confiscate the amount of Rp 1 Billion.
Although her lawyers protested, but Nunun looked so happy, this is obvious because the jail term was one year lighter than the maximum ruled by the Anti-Corruption Law. Moreover, the Prosecutor did not mention her effort to avoid legal charges by leaving the country for two and half years.
The 61 years old wife of former Deputy Chief of Police Adang Darajatun is on trial for allegedly bribing 28 members of the House of Representatives with Rp 480 Billion in travelers checks. The checks were given after the members voted for Miranda Gultom in an election for Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Indonesia in 2004.
This is the second time that a Defendant was punished lightly after the Corruption Court sentenced former Treasurer of President SBY's Democrat Party i.e. Nazaruddin to four years and ten months in jail and a fine of Rp 200 Million for receiving Bribe of Rp 4.6 Billion in the Athlete Housing case last Friday.
This Court's sentence was much lighter than demanded by the KPK Prosecutor i.e. seven years in jail and fine of Rp 300 Million.
Beside the above crime, Nazaruddin must still face other legal charges such as the alleged money laundering in the purchase of Garuda Shares, the Hambalang case.
The above mentioned Prosecutors's Demand in Nunun's case and Court Verdict in Nazaruddin's case and other previous Court Verdicts (please click here) show that we are far from winning the fight against Corruption.
We can only hope that in the future the KPK would always do their very best to prepare every Corruption cases properly, obtain strong and convincing evidences before they brought them to the Court, and demand heavier punishments.
I would prefer that KPK's Prosecutor would always demand very heavy penalty, including Life or even Death Sentence, that way the Court can be expected to consider passing heavier Sentences.
Showing posts with label Court verdict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court verdict. Show all posts
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Parking Companies Responsible for Vechicles
The Supreme Court has just passed a verdict ruling that vehicle parking companies should be fully responsible for any cars and or motorcycles that is stolen in the building or compound of parking that it managed.
This decision is very fair, because until now such parking companies charged cars/motorcycles with hourly parking rate only for the rental of parking space, but refuse to take responsibility for partial or total loss of car/motorcycle.
However, the Association of Shopping Center is not happy with this verdict, saying that the parking companies only provide parking spaces and do its best to prevent any stolen vehicles but cannot be asked to be responsible for them.
In connection with this verdict, the government of Jakarta plan to amend its by-law regarding Parking, among others by requiring parking companies to get insurance protection for all the vichicles parking in their area.
Related articles :
- Putusan MA: Parkir Wajib Ganti Kendaraan Hilang! (JakartaPress)
- Putusan MA Jadi Bahan Revisi Peda Parkir DKI (Detik)
- Asosiasi Pusat Belanja Nilai Putusan MA Aneh (Detik)
This decision is very fair, because until now such parking companies charged cars/motorcycles with hourly parking rate only for the rental of parking space, but refuse to take responsibility for partial or total loss of car/motorcycle.
However, the Association of Shopping Center is not happy with this verdict, saying that the parking companies only provide parking spaces and do its best to prevent any stolen vehicles but cannot be asked to be responsible for them.
In connection with this verdict, the government of Jakarta plan to amend its by-law regarding Parking, among others by requiring parking companies to get insurance protection for all the vichicles parking in their area.
Related articles :
- Putusan MA: Parkir Wajib Ganti Kendaraan Hilang! (JakartaPress)
- Putusan MA Jadi Bahan Revisi Peda Parkir DKI (Detik)
- Asosiasi Pusat Belanja Nilai Putusan MA Aneh (Detik)
Friday, April 30, 2010
Cancellation of Prosecution
On 19 April 2010, the District Court of South Jakarta passed a pre-trial verdict stating that the cancellation of prosecution against two Deputy Chairmen of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Bibit and Chandra, by the Attorney General Office (AGO) has been illegal therefore the trial should be revived.
This Court's verdict received contradictory reactions from the public. Some people agreed saying this will determine the legal status of Bibit and Chandra, if they are right than their position would be stronger. Some others disagree saying that the AGO canceled the prosecution based on the instruction of President SBY to settle the case out of court. While the AGO said that they will file and appeal with the Jakarta High Court.
In this regards, I would like to share with you a relevant article in The Jakarta Post (below) written by a senior lawyer who is a member of several prominent legal committees namely Frans Hendra Winarta.
The cancellation of the prosecution of Bibit and Chandra, which was already declared complete by the National Police chief and the Attorney General, ignored the due process of law.
Some say the cancellation of the prosecution of Bibit and Chandra is a correct legal sociological decision because it is in line with the people’s wishes and in accordance with their sense of justice.
However, it should be noted that an intervention from the power holders that the people’s wishes be heard will further weaken law enforcement in Indonesia.
In law enforcement, justice is a must. But in a case like the Bibit-Chandra one, which was about to be submitted to the court for hearing and was then canceled because of a presidential order, as well as pressure from the public that it be halted, the due process of law must also be observed.
The public’s massive support for Bibit and Chandra through Facebook has turned into disappointment, as the KPK has not become stronger and efficient, but indecisive when confronted with big corruption cases.
In handling the Bank Century scandal, for example, the KPK look as if they do not know how to handle it.
Worse is the KPK seems at a loss when handling the alleged tax fraud involving PT Ramayana Lestari Sentosa boss Paulus Tumewu.
In fact, I have reminded everyone of the danger of ignoring the due process of law and its impacts on law enforcement, especially anti-corruption.
If only Bibit and Chandra had been questioned under the supervision of the Judicial Commission, the National Ombudsman Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, the National Law Commission and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center, within two to three months, the case would have become final and Bibit and Chandra may have been released from their legal problems and could have turned all their attention to leading the KPK in the fight against corruption.
However, unfortunately the eight-member presidential supervisory team did not anticipate the impact of their recommendation on the fate of law enforcement.
The brief victory brought euphoria to the public who simplified Bibit and Chandra as the personification of the KPK, whereas in fact Bibit and Chandra are not the same as the KPK.
Let’s hope that the prosecutor’s office will file an appeal against the court’s pretrial verdict and subsequently the Jakarta High Court will annul the lower court’s verdict, so that both Bibit and Chandra can continue their work at the KPK. The prosecution against Bibit and Chandra may not necessarily weaken the KPK. It is the attitude of KPK leaders, who are indecisive and easily swayed, which will weaken the KPK itself. Let’s hope that all of these matters can be resolved quickly because a weak KPK will only foil the corruption eradication agenda of the SBY administration itself.
Indeed, we are currently facing a dilemma of law enforcement that is mixed with political intervention. This political intervention turns out to be a disaster for law enforcement in Indonesia.
If the Jakarta High Court upholds the pretrial verdict of the South Jakarta District Court, Bibit and Chandra had better face the court proceedings to clear their names from all the allegations. If they are acquitted of all the charges, it will be proof that efforts to weaken the KPK are real and do exist. Otherwise, all the accusations of attempts to weaken the KPK are groundless.
The writer is chairman of the Indonesian Advocates Association (Peradin). The opinions expressed are personal.
This Court's verdict received contradictory reactions from the public. Some people agreed saying this will determine the legal status of Bibit and Chandra, if they are right than their position would be stronger. Some others disagree saying that the AGO canceled the prosecution based on the instruction of President SBY to settle the case out of court. While the AGO said that they will file and appeal with the Jakarta High Court.
In this regards, I would like to share with you a relevant article in The Jakarta Post (below) written by a senior lawyer who is a member of several prominent legal committees namely Frans Hendra Winarta.
Ignorance, a disaster for law enforcement
Frans H. Winarta, Jakarta | Fri, 04/30/2010 8:35 AM | Opinion
The pretrial verdict of the South Jakarta District Court on Bibit S. Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is not unpredictable.
The pretrial verdict of the South Jakarta District Court on Bibit S. Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is not unpredictable.
The cancellation of the prosecution of Bibit and Chandra, which was already declared complete by the National Police chief and the Attorney General, ignored the due process of law.
Some say the cancellation of the prosecution of Bibit and Chandra is a correct legal sociological decision because it is in line with the people’s wishes and in accordance with their sense of justice.
However, it should be noted that an intervention from the power holders that the people’s wishes be heard will further weaken law enforcement in Indonesia.
In law enforcement, justice is a must. But in a case like the Bibit-Chandra one, which was about to be submitted to the court for hearing and was then canceled because of a presidential order, as well as pressure from the public that it be halted, the due process of law must also be observed.
The public’s massive support for Bibit and Chandra through Facebook has turned into disappointment, as the KPK has not become stronger and efficient, but indecisive when confronted with big corruption cases.
In handling the Bank Century scandal, for example, the KPK look as if they do not know how to handle it.
Worse is the KPK seems at a loss when handling the alleged tax fraud involving PT Ramayana Lestari Sentosa boss Paulus Tumewu.
In fact, I have reminded everyone of the danger of ignoring the due process of law and its impacts on law enforcement, especially anti-corruption.
If only Bibit and Chandra had been questioned under the supervision of the Judicial Commission, the National Ombudsman Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, the National Law Commission and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center, within two to three months, the case would have become final and Bibit and Chandra may have been released from their legal problems and could have turned all their attention to leading the KPK in the fight against corruption.
However, unfortunately the eight-member presidential supervisory team did not anticipate the impact of their recommendation on the fate of law enforcement.
The brief victory brought euphoria to the public who simplified Bibit and Chandra as the personification of the KPK, whereas in fact Bibit and Chandra are not the same as the KPK.
Let’s hope that the prosecutor’s office will file an appeal against the court’s pretrial verdict and subsequently the Jakarta High Court will annul the lower court’s verdict, so that both Bibit and Chandra can continue their work at the KPK. The prosecution against Bibit and Chandra may not necessarily weaken the KPK. It is the attitude of KPK leaders, who are indecisive and easily swayed, which will weaken the KPK itself. Let’s hope that all of these matters can be resolved quickly because a weak KPK will only foil the corruption eradication agenda of the SBY administration itself.
Indeed, we are currently facing a dilemma of law enforcement that is mixed with political intervention. This political intervention turns out to be a disaster for law enforcement in Indonesia.
If the Jakarta High Court upholds the pretrial verdict of the South Jakarta District Court, Bibit and Chandra had better face the court proceedings to clear their names from all the allegations. If they are acquitted of all the charges, it will be proof that efforts to weaken the KPK are real and do exist. Otherwise, all the accusations of attempts to weaken the KPK are groundless.
The writer is chairman of the Indonesian Advocates Association (Peradin). The opinions expressed are personal.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Successful Lawsuit against a Cigarette Co.
Cigarette manufacturers are very powerful in Indonesia!
This can be seen from the advertisements spaces on the media and open-air sign boards that are dominated by cigarette manufacturers.
Efforts made by Anti-Cigarette activists, including filing lawsuit against those manufacturers, often ended in vain. Maybe the main reason is because those manufacturers contributed a large sum of money for our country's income.
Recently, I read on Legal Blog Watch about a successful lawsuit filed by a Cigarette Smoker against cigarette manufacturer Philip-Morris at the District Court of Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Note: this company is majority owner of Indonesian cigarette manufacturer PT HM Sampoerna.
Although the verdict of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts may not be applicable in Indonesia, but it can at least be used as reference for similar lawsuit here.
Please find below the said blog post for your kind perusal.
'Healthy' Smokers Win Landmark Tobacco Ruling
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled today that cigarette smokers who have suffered no apparent injuries to their health may nonetheless bring a lawsuit to force tobacco makers to pay for medical monitoring to scan for cancer that may develop in the future. The case, Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, was decided based on questions certified to the court from the U.S. District Court in Boston. In an opinion authored by Justice Francis X. Spina, the unanimous SJC said the smokers should have their day in court.
Our tort law developed in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, when the vast majority of tortious injuries were caused by blunt trauma and mechanical forces. We must adapt to the growing recognition that exposure to toxic substances and radiation may cause substantial injury which should be compensable even if the full effects are not immediately apparent. ...
When competent medical testimony establishes that medical monitoring is necessary to detect the potential onset of a serious illness or disease due to physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk of harm from exposure to a known hazardous substance, the element of injury and damage will have been satisfied and the cost of that monitoring is recoverable in tort. ...
Medical expenses are recoverable not only for direct treatment and diagnosis of a present injury or an injury likely to occur, but for diagnostic tests needed to monitor medically a person who has been substantially exposed to a toxic substance that has created physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk that the person will contract a serious illness or disease. The expense of medical monitoring is thus a form of future medical expense and should be treated as such.
The plaintiffs in the case are asking the federal district court to certify the lawsuit as a class action. They purport to represent a class of Massachusetts residents aged 50 and older who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20 years and who have not been diagnosed with or suspected of having lung cancer. Philip Morris sought to have the case dismissed in the District Court on the grounds that a tort plaintiff must be able to prove an existing physical injury in order to recover damages.That was the question the federal court asked the SJC to decide.
The SJC also ruled that the plaintiffs claims are not blocked by the statute of limitations. Because the technology was only recently developed that would allow the medical monitoring they seek in their complaint, the discovery rule would apply, the SJC said.
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 19, 2009 at 02:33 PM
This can be seen from the advertisements spaces on the media and open-air sign boards that are dominated by cigarette manufacturers.
Efforts made by Anti-Cigarette activists, including filing lawsuit against those manufacturers, often ended in vain. Maybe the main reason is because those manufacturers contributed a large sum of money for our country's income.
Recently, I read on Legal Blog Watch about a successful lawsuit filed by a Cigarette Smoker against cigarette manufacturer Philip-Morris at the District Court of Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Note: this company is majority owner of Indonesian cigarette manufacturer PT HM Sampoerna.
Although the verdict of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts may not be applicable in Indonesia, but it can at least be used as reference for similar lawsuit here.
Please find below the said blog post for your kind perusal.
'Healthy' Smokers Win Landmark Tobacco Ruling
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled today that cigarette smokers who have suffered no apparent injuries to their health may nonetheless bring a lawsuit to force tobacco makers to pay for medical monitoring to scan for cancer that may develop in the future. The case, Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, was decided based on questions certified to the court from the U.S. District Court in Boston. In an opinion authored by Justice Francis X. Spina, the unanimous SJC said the smokers should have their day in court.
Our tort law developed in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, when the vast majority of tortious injuries were caused by blunt trauma and mechanical forces. We must adapt to the growing recognition that exposure to toxic substances and radiation may cause substantial injury which should be compensable even if the full effects are not immediately apparent. ...
When competent medical testimony establishes that medical monitoring is necessary to detect the potential onset of a serious illness or disease due to physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk of harm from exposure to a known hazardous substance, the element of injury and damage will have been satisfied and the cost of that monitoring is recoverable in tort. ...
Medical expenses are recoverable not only for direct treatment and diagnosis of a present injury or an injury likely to occur, but for diagnostic tests needed to monitor medically a person who has been substantially exposed to a toxic substance that has created physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk that the person will contract a serious illness or disease. The expense of medical monitoring is thus a form of future medical expense and should be treated as such.
The plaintiffs in the case are asking the federal district court to certify the lawsuit as a class action. They purport to represent a class of Massachusetts residents aged 50 and older who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20 years and who have not been diagnosed with or suspected of having lung cancer. Philip Morris sought to have the case dismissed in the District Court on the grounds that a tort plaintiff must be able to prove an existing physical injury in order to recover damages.That was the question the federal court asked the SJC to decide.
The SJC also ruled that the plaintiffs claims are not blocked by the statute of limitations. Because the technology was only recently developed that would allow the medical monitoring they seek in their complaint, the discovery rule would apply, the SJC said.
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 19, 2009 at 02:33 PM
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Pirate Bay case
On 17 April 2009, the District Court of Stockholm-Sweden found Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundström guilty of having assisted in making 33 Copyright-protected files available on their free-file sharing website The Pirate Bay, punished each of them to one year in prison and ordered them to pay compensation amounting to US$ 3,6 million.
According to Legal Blog Watch, soon after the court passed said verdict, a Swedish radio station revealed that the court’s judge i.e Tomas Norström is a member of 2 pro Copyright groups: the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the Swedish Copyright Association whose members include three of the Plaintiffs' lawyers Henrik Pontén, Peter Danowsky & Monique Wadsted.
According Reuters, on 27 April, Carl Lundstrom’s lawyer Per Samuelson said in a document sent to the Court of Appeal that the judge’s membership in those groups should have disqualified him from presiding of the case. He said :
"Tomas Norstrom was biased during the trial ... Secondly, he neglected to inform the defendants and their lawyers of the facts that constituted the bias."
Due to the above facts, the Defendants have filed appeal with the High Court to request for a retrial of the case. So, the faith of the four defendants now rests in the hands of the judges of said Court.
According to Legal Blog Watch, soon after the court passed said verdict, a Swedish radio station revealed that the court’s judge i.e Tomas Norström is a member of 2 pro Copyright groups: the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the Swedish Copyright Association whose members include three of the Plaintiffs' lawyers Henrik Pontén, Peter Danowsky & Monique Wadsted.
According Reuters, on 27 April, Carl Lundstrom’s lawyer Per Samuelson said in a document sent to the Court of Appeal that the judge’s membership in those groups should have disqualified him from presiding of the case. He said :
"Tomas Norstrom was biased during the trial ... Secondly, he neglected to inform the defendants and their lawyers of the facts that constituted the bias."
Due to the above facts, the Defendants have filed appeal with the High Court to request for a retrial of the case. So, the faith of the four defendants now rests in the hands of the judges of said Court.
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Risk of Writing Online
I have heard many times about fellow bloggers complaining that their writings have been claimed by others as their own works. And I believe that they have every reason to complain, not only because they have used their thoughts, time and energy to do the writing, but also because the Copyright Law protect them from such kind of action.
However, the judges of a state appeals court in California, U.S.A, seemed to think differently when they recently passed a verdict regarding a posting in the social networking site MySpace.com.
In this regards, Legal Blog Watch quoted an article in SFGate.com saying that the case dates back to October 2005 when Cynthia Moreno returned from a visit to her hometown of Coalinga, Calif., and ranted about the community in her online journal. She removed the posting six days later, but in the interim, Roger Campbell, principal of Coalinga High School, downloaded the entry and gave it to a friend, the editor of the Coalinga Record, who soon published it as a letter to the editor. Following the publication, Moreno's sister and parents, who still lived in Coalinga, received death threats and a shot was fired at their home. Eventually, the threats drove them out of town and forced Moreno's father to shut down a 20-year-old family business.
Moreno and her family sued the newspaper and the principal for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. The appeals court let stand the emotion distress claims, but dismissed the invasion of privacy action, finding that Moreno's posting "made her article available to any person with a computer and thus opened it to the public eye."
The above court's verdict makes us realize what sort of risk we take (to our privacy) when we are writing online.
However, the judges of a state appeals court in California, U.S.A, seemed to think differently when they recently passed a verdict regarding a posting in the social networking site MySpace.com.
In this regards, Legal Blog Watch quoted an article in SFGate.com saying that the case dates back to October 2005 when Cynthia Moreno returned from a visit to her hometown of Coalinga, Calif., and ranted about the community in her online journal. She removed the posting six days later, but in the interim, Roger Campbell, principal of Coalinga High School, downloaded the entry and gave it to a friend, the editor of the Coalinga Record, who soon published it as a letter to the editor. Following the publication, Moreno's sister and parents, who still lived in Coalinga, received death threats and a shot was fired at their home. Eventually, the threats drove them out of town and forced Moreno's father to shut down a 20-year-old family business.
Moreno and her family sued the newspaper and the principal for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. The appeals court let stand the emotion distress claims, but dismissed the invasion of privacy action, finding that Moreno's posting "made her article available to any person with a computer and thus opened it to the public eye."
The above court's verdict makes us realize what sort of risk we take (to our privacy) when we are writing online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)