A

Supreme Court ruling that has ordered the family of former president Soeharto to pay a total of Rp 4.4 trillion (US$321.7 million) in penalties to compensate for a misuse of scholarship funds is based on weak evidence, a family lawyer says.

'€œAll documents are just copies. Most witnesses presented by prosecutors were irrelevant and did not support the charges,'€ said Juan Felix Tampubolon, the lawyer that represents the family in the case of the Yayasan Supersemar (Supersemar Foundation) on Tuesday.

The case dates back to 2008 when the Attorney General'€™s Office (AGO) filed a lawsuit at the South Jakarta District Court accusing the Soeharto family and the foundation of misusing scholarship funds by diverting them to their own companies.

During the process, the Supreme Court found Yayasan Supersemar guilty in 2010 and demanded that it pay $315 million and Rp 139.2 billion, which together equal about Rp 4.4 trillion under the present valuation.

The problem was made more complicated since the earlier verdict by the lesser court contained a typographical error, stating that the rupiah portion of the ordered payment was only Rp 139.2 million, instead of Rp 139.2 billion '€” a stark contrast to the latest verdict made by the Supreme Court.

'€œWe are obliged to respect the court'€™s decision, but we will study the verdict carefully to decide our next legal action,'€ said Felix.

Supreme Court spokesman Suhadi confirmed that there was a clerical error in the amount of the penalty in the earlier verdict, which had prompted prosecutors to file a case review with the court.

He also emphasized that it is the foundation that should be burdened with the fines, not the Soeharto family.

'€œI must explain that there were two parties the lawsuit was filed against: Soeharto and the Supersemar Foundation. We are demanding compensation only from the Supersemar Foundation,'€ he said.

But Suhadi said that the case is already at the final stage and ready for execution and is no longer a subject to be challenged. The AGO praised the court'€™s decision to amend the ruling and said it would coordinate with the South Jakarta District Court to implement the ruling as soon as possible.

'€œWe welcome this good news. However, to execute the ruling we must first receive the official notification through the assigned district court,'€ Widyo Pramono, the AGO'€™s junior attorney general for special crimes, told reporters on Tuesday.

Judicial Commission member Eman Suparman said all parties, including petitioners, the prosecutors and the Supreme Court, must use a proactive approach in monitoring all rulings to spot such clerical errors.

'€œOften, clerical errors were found by the relevant parties, not the Supreme Court. But everyone must proactively study the ruling documents and their copies,'€ he said on Tuesday and later revealed that the commission once received a report with a similar typographical error concerning fines in a civil lawsuit.

The Supreme Court, he added, must also improve its internal mechanism to monitor clerical activities in all levels of court, whether at the Supreme Court itself or the lower courts.

Eman argued that the Supreme Court has the authority to issue a revision, in legal circles commonly called a renvoi, on its ruling or other court rulings under its jurisdiction without having other parties demanding a case review against a ruling that contains clerical errors.

'€œThey have the authority. They must be able to immediately realize such clerical errors and make revisions,'€ he added, saying that it was important to revise such typographical errors to ensure legal certainty.