LAKSAMANA.Net, June 16, 2005 11:25 PM
Hilton Murderer Gets Only 7 Years
Laksamana.Net - In a disgraceful sign that Indonesia's notoriously corrupt judiciary
remains afraid of punishing the rich and powerful elite to the full extent of the law,
tycoon Adiguna Sutowo has been sentenced to a mere seven years in jail for
murdering a waiter at Jakarta's Hilton International Hotel.
Given the Justice Ministry's penchant for giving hefty remissions to wealthy convicts,
the corpulent murderer could be out of jail within less than five years.
The sentence, handed down on Thursday (16/6/05) by Central Jakarta District Court,
sparked disgust and outrage among pro-reform figures and the victim's lawyers.
Prosecutors had earlier recommended a life sentence for Adiguna, arguing there were
no mitigating circumstances for any leniency.
Adiguna, a member of one of the country's most filthy rich and influential families,
shot waiter Yohannes Berchmans Haerudy ‘Rudy' Natong (25) at the Hilton's Fluid
Club in the early hours of January 1, 2005.
The court heard that Adiguna flew into a rage and shot Rudy in the head from almost
point-blank range after being informed his debit card could not be used to settle a
Rp150,000 ($16) bar tab. Police have said the tycoon was drunk at the time of the
shooting and also under the influence of shabu-shabu (crystal methamphetamine) and
cocaine. He was not charged with drug offenses.
Rudy, from a poor family on Flores island in East Nusa Tenggara province, had been
working part-time at the Hilton to support his law studies at Jakarta's Bung Karno
University. He was due to have graduated this year.
Adiguna's brother Pontjo Sutowo is the boss of the Jakarta Hilton and three other
Hiltons in Indonesia. Their father, the late Ibnu Sutowo, was boss of state oil company
Pertamina from 1968-76, during which time his corrupt mismanagement virtually
bankrupted the firm.
Central Jakarta District Court convicted Adiguna of murder with intent but without
premeditation, a charge that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, and illegal
possession of an unregistered firearm and ammunition, which carries a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment.
Presiding judge Lilik Mulyadi kept his eyes averted from the spectators in the packed
courtroom as he read out the verdict. He said that although all of the accusations
against Adiguna had been "legitimately proven" by the prosecution, there were several
extenuating factors to warrant a light sentence.
Citing these mitigating circumstances, he said: the defendant was still young; he was
the head of a household and could become a model family man; he had been polite
during the trial; it was his first offense; he was a prominent figure, so he and his family
had already been "morally punished" by the media coverage of the case; his family
had apologized for the murder; and the victim's family had accepted the apology and
requested as lenient a sentence as possible.
Analysts said the flimsy reasons for the limp sentence gave credence to rumors that
Adiguna's super-rich and well-connected family had managed to have the panel of
three judges bribed or intimidated.
Critics point out that at age 47, Adiguna is hardly "still young" in a country where
average life expectancy for men is 63. Do the judges expect him to live for another 47
years? Come on.
It's also difficult to believe that Adiguna was a model of polite behavior during his trial.
On several occasions he failed to appear in court due to alleged respiratory problems,
often failing to provide a medical certificate before proceedings. As an example of his
tardiness, Thursday's session was due to commence at 10am but was delayed until
11.20am because Adiguna was over an hour late. He also had different groups of
supporters show up the court, often garbed in Islamic outfits, which was seen as an
attempt to intimidate the supporters of Rudy, a Christian.
Furthermore, critics argue, the murder is not so much Adiguna's "first offense", but
merely the first offense for which police had the courage to have him arrested.
As for the Natong family's request for a lenient sentence, it was written by Rudy's
father only after he received at least one bribe (an undisclosed amount of cash) from
the Sutowo family. Other members of the family said they had no knowledge of the
letter and instead demanded the death penalty for Adiguna, but the judges ignored
these calls for justice.
In addition to giving the ambiguous reasons for handing down the light sentence,
Mulyadi also cited legal precedent for the lame verdict. He pointed out that former
president Suharto's youngest son Hutomo ‘Tommy' Mandala Putra was sentenced to
15 years in jail for murder, fleeing justice and illegal possession of firearms,
ammunition and explosives.
He then mentioned that Suharto's grandson Ari Sigit was sentenced to "one year" in
jail for illegal possession of ammunition. That reference clearly demonstrated the
judge's lack of knowledge. Ari Sigit was in fact sentenced on December 21, 2001, to
only 2 months and 22 days in jail for illegal possession of bullets, and walked free as
he had already spent that amount of time on remand, mostly while in hospital and
under house arrest.
But nevermind the judge's inability to get his facts right. Observers interpreted his
statement on Tommy Suharto and Ari Sigit as a message that criminals from hugely
wealthy and powerful families are entitled to lenient sentences.
Mulyadi went even further in attempting to justify the light sentence. "The public
prosecutor was excessively formalistic and legalistic in formulating its sentencing
demand," he was quoted as saying by hukumonline law portal.
Not shy of spouting his only legal jargon, he said that from an "applicative policy" the
panel of judges had to achieve a "balanced verdict", rather than merely aiming to
punish the perpetrator.
The panel of judges also cited passages from the Koran, the Bible an even an ancient
Chinese poem stating that people who apologize for their mistakes could be forgiven.
Such an argument is absolute hogwash in the context of the murder trial. Adiguna
never once confessed to his evil crime, but instead persistently lied to the court by
claiming he was innocent.
Reactions
"The panel of judges sentences the defendant to seven years in jail, to be reduced by
the time he has already spent in detention and while being treated in hospital."
With those words, the presiding judge shattered the hopes of many Indonesians, who
had hoped the courts might follow President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's policy of
pushing forward judicial reform by combating corruption, collusion and nepotism.
The courtroom was packed with spectators, many of them allegedly on Adiguna's
payroll to stage a tough show of support for him. They cheered and applauded the
lenient sentence, drowning out a few complaints by Rudy's student friends, while
members of Adiguna's family embraced in apparent relief.
Dressed in a cream-colored batik shirt and black trousers, Adiguna shed a few tears
as the verdict was handed down, but otherwise appeared generally unemotional. He
continued to cry as he thanked his seven-member defense team, while his thug-like
supporters formed a protective ring around him and swaggered about the court as if
they owned it.
Police, who should have been guarding Adiguna, had to be content with merely
guarded the menacing supporters. They also guarded Mulyadi, preventing reporters
from asking him to explain the real reason for the low sentence.
Reporters were also unable to question Adiguna, who was swiftly taken back to
Jakarta's Salemba penitentiary – where rich prisoners can buy all manner of luxuries.
Meanwhile, a small number of students from Bung Karno University staged a small,
brief demonstration outside the court to demand a heavier penalty for the murderer.
Head of the defense team Mohammad Assegaf, who also represents Suharto,
immediately said he would appeal the verdict at Jakarta High Court because his
Adiguna had always maintained his innocence and the judges had not considered all
of the defense's arguments.
But outside the court, he said the defense team would not appeal if Adiguna decides
to accept the verdict.
Assegaf said he appreciated the judges' assessment that a life sentence was too
heavy a penalty, although he added that "many facts" indicated Adiguna was not
guilty. "There were many contradictory statements from the witnesses that were
produced," he was quoted as saying by detikcom online news portal.
Chief prosecutor Andi Herman seemed unfazed and unsurprised by the low sentence.
He said he accepted some responsibility for the ruling and would decide within a week
whether to appeal. "It's no problem, it's normal," he said. "But we will examine the
verdict carefully. There are seven days [to do that]. The seven-year sentence was very
far from our demand of a life sentence."
The Natong family's lawyer Hendrik Jehaman made it clear he was disappointed by
the low sentence, saying it was "unfair" and "unjust" of the judges to claim it was
based on Tommy Suharto's 15-year sentence.
He pointed out that leniency should only be shown to criminals who cooperate with a
court and confess their crimes.
Jehaman also said the court should not have considered the letter from Rudy's father
Alfons requesting a lenient sentence as legitimate evidence, because he had not been
produced as a witness to verify the authenticity of the document.
"That was unfair. The letter was separate from the trial. Why did Alfons' letter become
a fact during the trial? This is strange, as he did not come here. If he could have been
produced during the trial, then we would know whether the letter was genuine or
whether it was due to the influence of a certain person," he was quoted as saying by
detikcom.
The lawyer said he had expected Adiguna would receive a sentence of at least 15-20
years in jail, but never thought he would escape with just seven years.
"If he was an ordinary person the sentence would be much, much higher, not seven
years," he was quoted as saying by The Sydney Morning Herald daily.
"It's just possible the judges were influenced by the big name [Sutowo] or by other
things that we still have to look for," he said, adding there rumors but no proof of
bribery.
Legislator Trimedya Panjaitan of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP)
described the light sentence as "extraordinary" and warned that it would upset the
public's sense of justice.
"If the public prosecutor demands a life sentence and the judge then hands down a
sentence of seven years, this injures the public's sense of justice," he was quoted as
saying by detikcom.
Panjaitan, who is a member of parliament's commission III on law and legislation, said
that as a former legal practitioner he found it strange that the court's decision was
apparently based on a request from the victim's family and a prominent public figure.
"Certainly, close attention must be paid to the legal facts that emerged in the trial, but
it's very strange if public prosecutor's demand for a life sentence becomes a
seven-year prison sentence. This will clearly cause public jealousy," he said.
In criminal cases, he said, judges should base their decisions on recommendations of
the prosecution. "Certainly, an apology for the defendant is one consideration, but not
the main consideration. The main consideration of a panel of judges should continue
to be based on the demand of the public prosecution."
Copyright © 2000 - 2005 Laksamana.net, All Rights Reserved.
|
