TIME MAGAZINE FIGHTING TO OVERTURN DEFAMATION RULING IN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 JAKARTA 002969 SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/MTS, EEB/IFD/OIA, INL BOULDIN L/LEI FOR BUCHHOLZ DOJ FOR CRIM AAG SWARTZ DOJ/OIA FOR WARNER/ROBINSON DOJ/OPDAT FOR ALEXANDRE/LEHMANN/JOHNSON DOJ/AFMLS FOR SAMUEL MCC FOR AMBASSADOR DANILOVICH AND MORFORD DEPT PASS USTR FOR AMBASSADOR SCHWAB TREASURY FOR IA - BAUKOL USAID FOR ANE/AA WARD SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV KCOR ECON KJUS ID SUBJECT: TIME MAGAZINE FIGHTING TO OVERTURN DEFAMATION RULING IN INDONESIA REF: Jakarta 2525 JAKARTA 00002969 001.2 OF 002 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: TIME magazine will soon file for judicial review - its last available legal option - in the Suharto defamation case. The Supreme Court ruled on August 30 that TIME must pay $111 million to former President Suharto due to defamation of character caused by a May 1999 TIME cover story (see reftel). The Supreme Court has overturned similar cases through judicial review in the past, although the process could take years. Beyond press freedom, the TIME case is an investment climate issue, raising serious doubts about rule of law in Indonesia. End Summary. Working within the Indonesian Legal System -------------- ¶2. (SBU) TIME Indonesia's correspondent Jason Tedjasukmana told us that TIME's legal team will file for Supreme Court judicial review by the end of the month. Judicial review is the last available legal option to appeal the case. TIME wants to file the review quickly to maintain the case's public profile. Prominent lawyer and Transparency International Indonesia chairman Todung Mulya Lubis is leading the TIME defense team. ¶3. (SBU) The judicial review process could last months, if not years, according to Tedjasukmana. Through its judicial review function, the Supreme Court has overturned previous decisions, but it is not common. TIME plans to seek review on the basis of "manifest error," arguing error was made in the previous court judgment. The Supreme Court also reviews cases if new evidence is presented, but Tedjasukmana said they have no new evidence to present. ¶4. (SBU) The defense team may also argue that the Supreme Court based its original decision on civil code whereas the Indonesian press law should have been applied, according to Tedjasukmana. In 2006, the Supreme Court overturned a district court decision against leading Indonesian weekly Tempo when Indonesian businessman Tommy Winata filed defamation charges. The Supreme Court applied the press law, overturning the district court's use of criminal law. The Man Behind the Man -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Tedjasukmana suggested that one factor that would help TIME's strategy to overturn the ruling is the retirement of the Supreme Court judge who made the original decision. Supreme Court judges are unlikely to rule against one of their own, he said. If the original case's lead judge retires, he does not lose face if judicial review overturns his original decision. As the judicial review will likely take months if not years, this strategy is a viable option. ¶6. (SBU) German Hoediarto (Vice Chair of the Supreme Court's military unit),M. Taufik, and Bahaudin Qaudry made the August 30 Supreme Court ruling against TIME. Close to retirement, Hoediarto is a strong nationalist with former military connections to Suharto. Hoediarto allegedly owes his two military stars to Suharto, according to our contacts. Although many in the public suspect corruption, nobody has provided evidence that corruption influenced the Supreme Court's decision. Background: Preparing for the Final Round? -------------- ¶7. (U) The August 30 Supreme Court decision is the third chapter in this long legal drama between TIME and Suharto. District and appellate courts originally ruled in favor of TIME since Suharto filed a lawsuit after the May 24, 1999 TIME "Suharto, Inc." article. This Supreme Court decision overturned these lower court decisions, finding defamation under civil code (see reftel). JAKARTA 00002969 002.2 OF 002 ¶8. (U) The local media has been united in strongly criticizing the ruling as a blow to press freedom. The wider public opinion is more mixed: some expressing nationalist reactions to protect Suharto, others claiming corruption was involved in the decision-making process. TIME vowed to contest the judgment, saying, "TIME will use every avenue available to fight for the defense of press freedoms. We will challenge this judgment by filing with the [Supreme] Court a petition for [judicial] review," according to an October 10 press release. Investors See Lack of Legal Certainty -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Beyond press freedom implications, this case calls into question again the integrity of the Indonesian judicial system for foreign investors. The decision highlights the sometimes capricious application of laws in Indonesia. Business leaders have said that the TIME case contributes to negative perceptions of the investment climate in Indonesia. We will raise the TIME case with Indonesian officials to convey how this decision negatively affects the investment climate, as well as Indonesia's international image. HUME