"SLIPPERY SLOPE" FOR PRESS FREEDOM? -- COURT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 JAKARTA 002688

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, EAP/MLS, INR/EAP, DRL, INL
DEPT FOR EEB/IFD/OMA,
DOJ/OPDAT FOR LEHMANN/ALEXANDRE/BERMAN
SINGAPORE FOR BAKER
TREASURY FOR IA-BAUKOL
DEPT PASS FEDERAL RESERVE SAN FRANCISCO FOR FINEMAN
DEPT PASS EXIM BANK
DEPT PASS USTR FOR DKATZ, RBAE
NSC FOR EPHU

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/23/2017
TAGS: PGOV KCOR KPAO PHUM ID
SUBJECT: "SLIPPERY SLOPE" FOR PRESS FREEDOM? -- COURT
RULING ON SUHARTO/TIME ASIA NETS HARSH CRITICISM

REF: A. JAKARTA 2525

B. JAKARTA 2229

C. JAKARTA 1920

D. 06 JAKARTA 1808

E. 04 JAKARTA 8766

JAKARTA 00002688 001.2 OF 002


Classified By: Pol/C Joseph Legend Novak, reasons 1.4(b)(d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: A recent Supreme Court decision awarding
former president Suharto USD 106 million in damages from Time
Asia has drawn intense criticism. Critics have attacked the
legal basis of the decision and warned of its potential
impact on press freedom in Indonesia -- one M.P. told Pol/C
that the ruling set Indonesia on "the slippery slope to a
muzzled press." Time is preparing a final appeal. The
ruling may undercut the ongoing efforts by the GOI to reclaim
millions of dollars of Suharto's ill-gotten gains. Although
some of the criticism seems a bit over the top--the media
continues to criticize public officials freely--it is a
testament to the dissonance sparked by the ruling. END
SUMMARY.


2. (U) SUHARTO WINS BIG: The Supreme Court on September 10
ordered Time Asia to issue a formal apology and pay former
president Suharto 1 trillion IR (USD 106 million) in damages
for defamation of character (ref A). The ruling overturned
the decisions of two lower courts which had ruled against the
former president. The suit concerned a May 1999 article
which described how Suharto and his family had accumulated
USD 15 billion in ill-gotten gains over the course of his
30-year rule. The written decision has yet to be released,
but the Court cited Time's inability to prove conclusively
two items in the article: an alleged USD 9 billion
international bank transfer and Suharto's illicit ownership
of a house.


3. (SBU) A LONG-SHOT APPEAL: Time Asia has announced that it
intends to file a request for Judicial Review of the
decision. The review would be decided upon by the Supreme
Court, however, which made the original ruling (usually such
requests are turned down). A contact at Time Asia welcomed
the UN's recent Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative, which
details Suharto's wealth and lists him as one of the world's
most corrupt dictators, noting that the report provides
further backing to the claims contained in Time's article.
It remains unclear whether the Court will in fact be able to
enforce the judgement if is upheld on appeal. Time Asia does
not have an office or assets in Indonesia, and Time Asia has
given no indication that it intends to pay anything or
apologize.


4. (C) INTENSE CRITICISM: The Supreme Court ruling has come
under heated attack. Media experts and press groups claim
that it threatens press freedom and will hinder future
investigations into corruption allegations. Tempo magazine,
Indonesia's leading weekly, which narrowly escaped a negative
ruling in a similar defamation suit in 2006 (ref D),called
it a "death knell" for freedom of the press. Observers also
question the Supreme Court's use of the general criminal
code--rather than the 1999 Press Law which supports freedom
of the press--to adjudicate the decision. The Press Law,
which was cited in the lower court decisions, places specific
burdens on the plaintiff which the criminal code does not.
The use of the Criminal Code in the decision contrasts with
the public statements of Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir
Manan, who in a 2004 speech urged judges to use the Press Law
for these types of disputes (ref E). The enormity of the
damage award has attracted attention as well. A contact at
the Supreme Court admitted privately that the award was "very
high."


5. (C) POLITICIANS LASH OUT: While some political figures
have called for the decision to be respected, members of the
national legislature (DPR) from several parties, including

JAKARTA 00002688 002.2 OF 002


the head of the DPR Committee on Judicial Affairs, Trimeyda
Panjaitan, have sharply criticized the ruling. Panjaitan
suggested the judges might have been bribed, which the Court
heatedly denied. In a September 21 conversation with Pol/C,
Marzuki Darusman, a former Attorney General and a member of
the DPR Commission on Foreign Affairs and Defense, commented
that the ruling set Indonesia on "the slippery slope to a
muzzled press."


6. (C) IMPEDING THE AGO?: In the short term, the ruling may
stymie current legal actions against Suharto and his family.
These include a civil suit filed by the Attorney General
against the Suharto-affiliated Supersemar Foundation (ref c),
several criminal investigations into his notorious son Tommy
Suharto, and an attempt to seize USD 50 million in assets
held by Tommy in a bank in Guernsey, England. Some observers
have speculated that the decision, suddenly announced after
six years of apparent inaction on the case, was dredged up to
thwart the efforts of the new Attorney General, Supandji, in
reclaiming Suharto's ill-gotten gains (ref b). Over all,
while some of the criticism seems a bit over the
top--Indonesian media remains free to criticize public
officials--it is a testament to the disquiet sparked by the
ruling.
HUME