La Ode Ida's fighting words: Statement in contempt of court?

Togi Pangaribuan ,  Jakarta   |  Fri, 07/11/2008 10:12 AM  |  Opinion

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed yet another political tug of war. This time around it is between the Regional Representatives Council vice chairman, La Ode Ida, and the Constitutional Court chief, Jimly Asshiddiqie.

What was it they were fighting over? They were disputing the Constitutional Court's judicial review of the Elections Law.

While the Constitutional Court was finalizing the decision, La Ode Ida said that should the Constitutional Court reject the the Regional Representatives Council submission on the law, the Constitutional Court would lose its independence.

He also said that the Regional Representatives Council would reconsider the existence of the Constitutional Court. Whether the latter statement is constitutionally possible is another question.

What is interesting is that, in response to La Ode's statement, Jimly retaliates by saying that La Ode's statement was in contempt of court and should he be present at the hearing of the verdict, they would eject him from the courtroom. Fortunately, no such fiasco took place.

The question is whether La Ode's statement constitutes contempt of court?

There have been many debates as to what contempt of court really means and what it entails. Most legal experts in Indonesia, be it academicians or practitioners, take the train of thought that contempt of court means that you behave inappropriately towards the court, usually to the judges, inside the courtroom. If we look at the existing regulations on contempt of court in Indonesia, the above train of thought is correct.

Thus, La Ode's statement was not a contempt of court because it was done outside the courtroom. The only provision that could include an inappropriate act outside the courtroom as a contempt of court is only Article 4(3) of the Judicial Powers Law (No. 4/2004). In my view, that connection is a thin one, at best.

However, if we look from a theoretic point of view, La Ode's statement was a contempt of court. He blatantly prejudiced the Constitutional Court and indirectly doubted its raison d'etre. There are multiple classifications of contempt of court, one of which is what La Ode Ida has done.

La Ode's statement was a contempt of court in the form of scandalizing the court. Scandalizing the court is when you give out statements outside the court which are insulting in nature or attack the impartiality of the court while the proceedings are taking place. This is exactly what La Ode did. Had he done so in the United States or United Kingdom, he could face charges.

Indonesia has been familiar with the term contempt of court since 1985. It was first introduced by the Supreme Court Law. The law regulates the importance of having a law to ensure favorable surroundings for court proceedings.

The government later issued a joint decree to regulate the behaviors of legal consultants. The regulation on contempt of court could also be found in the Criminal Code Procedures. Unfortunately, there isn't enough sting in them.

I was at the South Jakarta District Court some time ago, waiting for my client's trial to commence and decided to enter into one of the courtrooms. It was packed with a group of people showing their support to their colleague who was apparently on trial.

Probably because they were such a big group of people, they had the courage to do anything they wanted. Every time the public prosecutor said a single word, they would boo and cuss him. The same would happen every time the presiding judge said or asked something in contradiction to their position.

It was a clear example of a contempt of court as clearly regulated in the Criminal Code Procedures. That judge could've thrown them out of the courtroom for contempt, instead he patiently tried to hush them, fruitlessly of course.

In common law countries, contempt of court is considered more serious. In the United States of America, if you are in direct contempt, meaning if you behave inappropriately in the presence of the presiding judge, it is theoretically called in facie contempt. Therefore, in the United States, what the aforementioned group of people did may be dealt with summarily. You can also be charged for indirect contempt in the United States, meaning if you behave inappropriately towards the court outside the courtroom.

The United States, United Kingdom and even Thailand have their own special set of contempt of court regulations. We are currently in the process of developing one, although there is some debate whether we should put it in the draft law on the Criminal Code Procedures or in a separate law.

Despite the debate, I believe that we need something, be it included in the Criminal Code Procedures or in a separate law, to regulate contempt of court both for inside or outside the courtroom.

Of course people are entitled to their opinion and democracy is all the rage nowadays, but things are just getting out of hand. How many times have we seen on television, be it on a sophisticated talk show or a celebrity gossip show, somebody, or worse a lawyer, mocking the court proceedings of a case that he/she is involved in.

It is true that the courts needs to command respect by doing its job properly and transparently to gain the people's trust in the judicial system. However, we also need to do our bit, we need to trust them and be civilized towards them.

Quoting Thomas Hobbes: "... without a civilized society, all we are going to have is a war of all against all. A tug of war of all against all".

The writer is Jakarta based lawyer. He can be reached at togi.pangaribuan@gmail.com

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.