After more than four months of hearings, the Central Jakarta District Court finally arrived at a verdict on Friday in the case of the state versus Hutomo ""Tommy"" Mandala Putra, the 40-year-old son of former president Soeharto.
According to the verdict, Tommy was found guilty of having masterminded the contract killing of Supreme Court judge Syafiuddin Kartasasmita, as well as the illegal possession of firearms and fleeing justice. With the defendant absent due to a ""stomach illness"", presiding judge Amiruddin Zakaria and his colleagues read out the verdict to a court packed with spectators, many of whom appeared to be supporters of Tommy.
While the 15-year prison term may still disappoint the general public's demand for justice, it is just as likely to raise new controversies in a case that has been filled with controversy from the start.
First of all, many, if not most, Indonesians were appalled earlier by the public prosecutor's demand for a mere 15 years' imprisonment for Tommy, whereas the two hit men who actually carried out the assassination, Maulawarman, alias Mola, and Noval Hadad, were sentenced earlier last year to life in prison.
This huge disparity was enough to raise immediate suspicions of a conspiracy between the judges and Tommy's defense lawyers, either for the judges' material gain or personal safety. Judge Syafiuddin's killing, after all, must have served as a strong warning to other judges.
Throughout the whole trial, too, the panel of judges appeared to have taken a lenient, or even obliging, attitude toward Tommy, despite his indifferent statements and an attitude in court that often seemed sarcastic.
A major new point of controversy, however, is the fact that the court found it necessary to proceed with the hearing in absentia in a case where, by law, the defendant has to be present to hear the verdict. In Friday's hearing the defendant was sentenced despite his absence due to a stomach illness, a statement whose truth was reportedly authenticated by a doctor's certificate. There are legal arguments that attempt to circumvent this legal obstacle, none of which, however, seems to be easily applicable in this case.
Of course, the court had reason to expedite procedures, given that the defendant would have had to be released from detention within one week, that is by Aug. 3, the end of the period allowed by law for a person to be detained without a court adjudication. The in absentia hearing of a defendant facing the maximum penalty of death, however, opens up the opportunity for the defense to file an appeal with the Supreme Court on the grounds of an unfair or unlawful trial. That seems to be precisely the line Tommy's defense attorneys intend to take.
In addition to all of this, however, the reputation for incompetence and corruption that besets Indonesia's legal system at present makes it highly likely that even a genuinely fair and honest verdict would have been met with cynicism by the public.
For example, questions are already being asked why the Central Jakarta Court could not have waited until Monday -- the day Tommy's doctors requested -- to proceed with the trial. Could this have been part of a conspiracy to provide Tommy with a loophole to escape justice by filing a successful appeal with the Supreme Court?
Until Indonesia's legal system manages to improve its image and rid itself of unprofessional and corrupt elements, skeptics and cynics must be forgiven for their distrust and for believing that a conspiracy lurks round every corner. The recent UN rapporteur's negative findings about the Indonesian court system must be answered with immediate action aimed at improvement and not with the usual rejective attitude.
Indonesians, meanwhile, and probably much of the world outside too, will continue to follow this case with the utmost interest. Tommy's trial is not just a cause clbre, involving the son of a former president and also a prominent tycoon of the past Soeharto era: It is, in effect, the highest-profile litmus test of the integrity of the Indonesian legal system that there could possibly be. On its final outcome will rest much of the reputation of the Indonesian judiciary.
