Source: Jakarta Post.com
Opinion and Editorial - October 18, 2004

In an example of prudence in the search for justice, the underused Press Council issued on Friday a momentous decision that should reignite freedom of expression's dimming light.
In a decision that will surely become a model for resolving future press disputes, the council found that four publications breached the Indonesian Journalist's Code of Ethics. State Minister for State Enterprises Laksamana Sukardi had accused the publications of libel and brought them before the council for adjudication.
The four publications -- Trust magazine, Nusa daily, Reporter daily and Indopos daily -- were found to have violated the principle of presumption of innocence by suggesting that Laksamana had fled the country with more than US$100 million in state money.
In what is an affirmation of justice without vengeance, the council nevertheless rejected Laksamana's demand that the publications pay him a total of Rp 200 billion (US$22 million) in damages. A further demand that the publications run public apologies in other national print and electronic media was also denied.
Judging that the four publications had confounded facts and opinion, published unbalanced reports and failed to fact-check its information, the council said all four were in violation of the cardinal principle of presumption of innocence.
According to Council chairman Ichlasul Amal, all four must publish an apology, along with an unedited interview with Laksamana. Failure to comply with the council's decision could result in fines of up to Rp 500 million. A fifth publication, Rakyat Merdeka daily, was cleared of libel charges.
There will be those who feel hard done by. There will undoubtedly be differing interpretations of the council's decision. But we commend both the council and Laksamana for setting an example for all to follow. Press Law No. 40/1999 urges all media-related cases be resolved through the Press Council.
The council in this case did its job swiftly, resolving the case in less than two weeks. This is an illustration of how effective the Press Council can be compared to drawn out court proceedings. Those truly looking for fairness, not retribution, from the press should see this as an attractive means of addressing their concerns.
The council should also be praised for refusing to criminalize errors in editorial judgment and handing down a punishment appropriate for the violation. A financial penalty in the hundreds of millions of rupiah would have all but bankrupted these publications, which was never the intent of the press law.
Most of all we must applaud Laksamana for taking this matter to the Press Council in the first place, and honorably accepting its judgment despite several of his demands not being granted. We hope the council's ruling will satisfy his sense of justice without needlessly going through the civil or, especially, criminal courts.
The publications involved are also certainly within their right to pursue whatever appeals process is available to them under the press law. However, having exhausted this process, we urge them to graciously accept the council's ruling.
The resolution of this case is in stark contrast to the mockery of the conviction and sentencing last month of Tempo magazine chief editor Bambang Harymurti by the Central Jakarta District Court, for publishing an article deemed libelous to businessman Tomy Winata. This episode only helps confirm to us that the Tempo case, no matter the merits of the plaintiff's case, was a matter of persecution of the press.
We do not believe the press is above the law. We, as journalists, should be held to the same degree of accountability as any other citizen and resident of this country. With freedom comes responsibility. In fact, given our unique role in relation to public trust, journalists should hold themselves to a greater degree of responsibility than the average person.
Nevertheless, we also hope that given the press' important role in the country, it be recognized that prosecution of the media is often only a pretext for political persecution. That is why there is an irrefutable need for the application of a specialist law to regulate the press, i.e. the 1999 Press Law.
We do not wish to glorify the press' role, but it is a given that the press is on the first line of defense for freedom of expression. It represents that thin red line that separates a vibrant, egalitarian society from the soft authoritarianism that continues to threaten our nascent democratic way of life.