NEWS FEATURES:

Indonesia

by  Sri Suparyati

 

 

Trial on Munir’s Case: To Reveal the Mastermind, or To Find  a Scapegoat?

 

Foreword 

A  year after Munir’s murder with the use of arsenic poison was revealed, the trial on the murder case started on August 9,  2005.  It was led by Chief Judge Cicut Setiarso1 and Judges:  Sugito, Liliek Mulyadi, Agus Subroto and Ridwan Mansur. The prosecutors consisted of Domu P Sihite, Suroto, Edi Saputra, Giyanto, Muhammad Rum, Saptani, Meghanada and F. Eyert L. 

 

The hopes of Munir’s widow, Suciwati and of several human rights defenders that the trial would reveal not just the direct perpetrators but also the masterminds is far from reality. Going on for months, the trial still leaves a lot of questions as to the contents of the charges. In the end, the court was able to bring out only the defendant Pollycarpus without any sign of having more significant defendants or getting answers from the masterminds. 

In several sessions, the courtroom was filled not only by victims’ groups or families and other supporters of Munir but also by another group called Eastern Indonesian Students’ Forum. This group seems to be well-coordinated. It consists of around 20 people who were trying to find out the condition in the area surrounding the building of Central Jakarta District Court. During the second trial, it handed out two flyers containing the following: 

1. On behalf of Komunitas Mahasiswa Indonesia Timur (KOMIT, Community of Eastern Indonesian Students), containing: “support for the defendant and the Legal Counsels, as well as AM hendro Priyono, and to corner NGOs.”
    

2. On behalf of Wawan H. Purwanto, who identified himself as an intelligence observer, containing “defense for BIN (National Intelligence Agency) and cornering NGOs related to their funding.” 

This article was written to provide information on the new developments related to the trial of Munir’s case. The development in every session, which is KontraS’ monitoring routine, will reveal several important issues regarding the testimony of important witnesses. This development speaks about the testimonial sessions and the examination of Pollycarpus’ travel documents to Singapore.

 

The Indictment  

Pollycarpus was charged with the following: (1) that Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto either alone or with two other airline crew members, Yeti Susmiarti and Oedi Irianto (in separate documents), on Monday, 06 September 2004, until Tuesday, 7 September 2004, or at least within a particular time in September 2004, inside Garuda Indonesia Airways plane, flight number GA-974, Jakarta-Singapore, has carried out, ordered, or joined in the intentional and premeditated killing of another person, in this case the victim was Munir, SH.  (2) The defendant Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto either alone or with Garuda officials Ramelgia Anwar and Rohanil Aini (in separate documents) on Monday, 06 September 2004 in the office of PT. Garuda Indonesia Airways at Sukarno Hatta Airport Cengkareng has carried out, ordered or joined in the intentional creation of fake or falsified letters, and that such letters caused a loss to another party. 

For both charges, the defendant is charged with crimes against the Criminal Code (KUHP) as follows: (1) Article 340 KUHP and Jo article 55 (1) no-1 KUHP. (2) Article 263 verse (2) KUHP jo article 55 (1) no-1 KUHP. 

Furthermore, it was mentioned in the charges2 that the defendant committed the crime by reason to uphold the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) because based on the defendant’s or a certain party’s opinion, Munir’s activities were highly disturbing and served as obstacles or threats to government programs.  Thus, these accordingly led to disapproval by some parties including the defendants. Up to this point, the use of that motive was very unclear. It was even used frequently in several cases such as the trial of Kopassus (Special Armed Forces) “Mawar Team” members for the disappearances of pro-democracy activists at that time. It was also used in the case of Theys Eluay’s murder. It was said that the activists’ initiatives were seen as threats. The use of NKRI as the motive will break the chain of revelation at the level of the field perpetrators and never touch their superiors.  

From the statements described in the charges, in general, it can be seen that the Prosecutors failed to design the charges in such a way that it can lead to the connection between Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto and BIN (National Intelligence Agency). This is true despite the finding made by Brigadier General Marsudhi Hanafi, who said that his team found a document containing scenarios to kill the former KontraS coordinator.  The author of the said scenarios is an intelligence institution (TEMPO Interaktif, Jakarta, Wednesday, 15 June 2005).  

The Prosecutors’ charges disregarded the facts surrounding the suspicion that there were certain parties involved at the top level of Garuda and the National Intelligence Agency. Instead, the charges were directed more towards the field perpetrators who do not necessarily have any direct interest in ending Munir’s life.3 

Meanwhile, in the second charges, Rohainil Aini’s position was described very simply as issuing the notice of schedule change4 from the telephone call that she received from Pollycarpus. The schedule change was written in the notice of change No: OFA/219/04 signed by Rohainil Aini herself. The impact of Pollycarpus’ trip in the cost of transportation and accommodation was also explained. At this point, the prosecutors did not sense that the intention or aim of the letters was simply to address the cost of Pollycarpus’ trip to Singapore was somewhat odd. The impression arising from those letters seemed to provide a “legal” status towards Pollycarpus’ departure. The arguments over who would cover the cost could be used as an entrance to trace back other letters that suddenly came out of nowhere.

 

Examination of Witnesses  

Up to the 7th trial on 20 September 2005, several witnesses had given their testimonies. The beginning of the court agenda with the testimonies still revolved around the forgery of documents within Garuda, related to Pollycarpus’ trip to Singapore. Several witnesses were presented such as Suciwati (Munir’s widow), Indra Setiawan (former Garuda President Director), Ramelgia Anwar (former Corporate Security Vice President), Rohainil Aini (Flight Operation Support Officer and secretary to Chief Pilot Karmal Sembiring) and Captain Karmal Sembiring (Chief Pilot Airbus 303 Garuda). The testimonies given at the beginning of witness examinations were focused on the issuance of letters from a few important figures at Garuda regarding Pollycarpus’ trip to Singapore. Out of all the testimonies given at the beginning of the trial, most witnesses were not focused on the questions and tended to beat around the bush.  

In the testimony of Indra Setiawan, former Garuda President Director, many questions were answered in a rather complicated manner and he was often reprimanded by the judge to give information appropriately. Some things noted in the testimony of Indra Setiawan were as follows: the appointment of Pollycarpus as an assisting staff at the Corporate Security was carried out personally by  Indra Setiawan, without any previous recommendation to Ramelgia as the Vice President of Corporate Security; the assignment letter from Garuda President Director to Pollycarpus as an assisting staff at Corporate Security was written twice and signed twice, the first on 11 August 2004, the second on 17 February when the police requested for the original letter; Pollycarpus’ report as an assissting staff at Corporate Security was done using a typewriter not filled in according to the appropriate report format, and was carbon copied to the President Director; Pollycarpus’ ID card as an assisting staff at Corporate Security was issued before the assignment letter was issued, 16 May - June as written in the ID Card. Some questions arising in the witness examination were simply a repetition of the dossier.  There is also lack of exploration, the Prosecutors did not question in-depth the background or the qualification and the standards of Pollycarpus’ assignment at Corporate Security. 

Meanwhile, the testimony given by Indra Setiawan related to the reason behind Pollycarpus’ assignment at the Aviation Security, despite Pollycarpus’ position as a pilot of air bus 330, was because around 2003 or early 2004, Ramelgia was present in the central office to investigate. During the visit, Ramelgia  talked about the need for people with field access, which led to Indra seeking for help from a person who can fly  an airplane and has access. Indra also added that Ramelgia did not recommend any names when he requested for assistance.5

In his testimony, Ramelgia Anwar said several things as follows: as the Vice President of Corporate Security, he never ordered Pollycarpus to perform any activities in Singapore  to check on the dumping of fuel; Ramelgia was also unable to give any order to Pollycarpus because Pollycarpus’ superior authorized Captain Ronggo (Vice President Chief Pilot) and Captain Karmal (Chief Pilot)  to give orders; Karmal as the Chief Pilot was quite angry when he learned about Pollycarpus’ trip in Singapore because he had not been aware of it and his unit refused to cover the trip expenses; regarding the schedule change made by Rohainil, it was said that Rohainil had no authority to change the schedule without any approval from Captain Karmal and Vice President Pilot Ronggo; Pollycarpus’ assignment letter directly from the President Director was odd because according to procedures, the letter was supposed to refer to an order given by the direct superior. The inter-office letter containing Pollycarpus’ assignment signed by Ramelgia Anwar was written in three versions: 

1. dated 15 September

2. on 17 September, it was backdated to 4 September by reason as a strategy to cover Pollycarpus’ expenses on the trip.

3. on 20 September 2004, date written was 4 September, by reason of filing because the previous document was not copied, since Pollycarpus took the original. 

Furthermore, Ramelgia explained that the difference in the signatures in the letters dated 4th  September and 15th  September and the one made on 20th   September was that the one made on 20 September 2004 was signed while he was standing up. The assignment letter from the President Director dated 8 September 2004 (as an assisting staff at Corporate Security) and the letter dated 4 September (inter-office letter containing request for permission to Chief Pilot) were not letters mentioning about assignment to Singapore.  

Ramelgia also restated that the Corporate Security Unit that he  never needed any outside assistance and even if  it had, it would not have to be Pollycarpus. Polycarpus’ trip to handle dumping fuel  (refering to the dossier dated 2 February point 16) was actually not an assignment from Ramelgia Anwar’s Internal Security Unit. Regarding Pollycarpus’ qualifications related to his assignment at Aviation Security, Ramelgia said it was difficult to tell and that he did not know because Pollycarpus was assigned by the President Director directly.6 Moreover, Pollycarpus’ activity report did not meet the standard requirements of reporting at Corporate security. Another statement was that Pollycarpus’ ID card was valid from 6 June 2004, which meant that it was ahead of the assignment letter dated 11 August 2004. 

During the examination of witness Rohainil Aini (Flight Operation Support Officer and secretary to Chief Pilot Karmal Sembiring), was found to have made the notice of change for Pollycarpus’ schedule. The change was on the schedule of 5 and 6 September from a standby position into an extra crew in flight GA 974 destination Singapore. The change was made without approval and report to Karmal Sembiring as Pollycarpus’ superior in Airbus 330 and Ramelgia Anwar (as Pollycarpus’ superior at Corporate Security), despite the appropriate procedures that said that a pilot’s schedule change had to be made with the knowledge of the Captain Pilot.7  Rohainil Aini did the change for the following reasons: 

1. Pollycarpus told her that Ramelgia Anwar as the Vice President of Corporate Security would contact Captain Karmal Sembiring regarding Pollycarpus’ assignment from Corporate Security to Singapore8.

2. Because of the President Director’s letter found on Rohainil’s desk when Pollycarpus asked for his schedule to be changed to Singapore over the phone. However, when asked when she received the letter and what the content of the letter was, Rohainil said she did not know. (It got unclear at this point and it was unfortunate that the prosecutors and the judges did not question the issue in-depth despite the letter being the reference to issue the notice of change). Furthermore, Rohainil was not very convincing when she talked about the reason behind the change in Pollycarpus’ schedule.  

Rohainil also stuck to her testimony that when Pollycarpus asked for the change of schedule to Singapore on 6 September, Pollycarpus specifically mentioned flight GA 974. This testimony was denied by the defendant Pollycarpus, who said that he only requested for the first flight available. Rohainil maintained with her testimony that Pollycarpus was the one who requested to fly to Singapore with flight GA 974.  

In her testimony, Rohainil revoked several things that she had said in the dossier:  

•  In the dossier, Rohainil said: on 6 September, at noon, during working hours, Pollycarpus called the office to ask whether Rohainil had received Pollycarpus’ assignment letter from Garuda President Director dated 11 August, Garuda/DZ-2270/04, signed by Indra Setiawan and an assignment letter number IS/1177/04, dated 4 September 2004, signed by Ramelgia Anwar. At that time, Rohainil answered that she had received those letters. Pollycarpus then asked Rohainil to change his schedule into flying to Singapore. At the trial Rohainil claimed that she had only received one letter and talked with Pollycarpus only about it. On the letter from the  President Director dated 11 August 2004, the Prosecutor did not dig up the reason to  revoke it.

•  In the dossier:  Rohainil  claimed to have received a letter from the Corporate Security dated 4 September on 6 September 2004. At the trial: Rohainil claimed to have received the letter after 6 September  Again, the Prosecutor did not dig the reason to revoke.

 During the examination of witness, Karmal Sembiring (Chief Pilot Airbus 303 Garuda), Karmal as Pollycarpus’ superior did not know about Pollycarpus’ departure to Singapore and did not order Pollycarpus to go to Singapore; Karmal, as Pollycarpus’ superior, was never asked for opinion or confirmed by President Director Indra Setiawan related to Pollycarpus’ assignment at Corporate Security. According to procedures, Karmal was supposed to be involved in coordination.  

Regarding Pollycarpus’ request to change his schedule to Rohainil Aini, Karmal said that Rohainil Aini and Pollycarpus did not follow the proper mechanism in changing Pollycarpus’ schedule to Singapore on 6 September because Pollycarpus’ role as a non-flight extra crew in flight GA 974 should have been performed with an approval from Karmal as the Chief Pilot. 

Another information was the existence of two letters dated 15 and 4 September (the result of backdating the one dated 15 September) with the same contents, which was about the request for permission for Pollycarpus’ assignment at Corporate Security in sector JKT-SUB-JKT or JKT-DPS-JK or JKT-SIN-JKT. The letters were received on 15 September and 17 September (the backdated one). This was odd considering that the assignment from the President Director had been given since 11 August 2004 and Pollycarpus’ name was in the Gendec Singapore-Amsterdam, whereas the checking of dumping fuel that he was supposed to perform was only in Singapore because the Boeing 747 plane that experienced dumping fuel was in Singapore.

 

The Judges and the Prosecutors  

During the trial, there were some issues that the Judges and the Prosecutors should have noted such as in Rohainil Aini’s testimony. In this testimony, the Chief Judge often cut in or took over the questions from the Prosecutors before the witness had a chance to answer. When the prosecutor Domu P Sihite asked about the purpose of changing Pollycarpus’ schedule to Singapore, Cicut Setiarso cut the witness’ answer by saying “the content of the letter can be seen instead because the proof is there in the letter, better change with other questions.”  

The Chief Judge, Cicut Setiarso, also took over the answer that was supposed to be given by Rohainil and intervened the question given by the prosecutor when the prosecutor F. Eleyert asked about the letter from the President Director, found on Rohainil’s desk and when he was about to read Rohainil’s dossier related to the issue. Cicut Setiarso said “when on the phone, the letter was already on the table, first Rohainil explained that the letter was dated 6 September, but in the next examination, Rohainil said that the letter was dated 31 August, therefore, there had been a change in Rohainil’s three examinations”. Prosecutor F Eleyert said that “we also received changes”. The Judge said (as if representing Rohainil) “the correct one is that the letter that Rohainil saw was the one from the President Director on her desk, dated 31 August, containing an assignment for Pollycarpus in Corporate Security. (in our knowledge, the letter of assignment from the President Director to Pollycarpus was dated 11 August 2004). 

The same thing happened when Rohainil said that the letter from the President Director was already on her desk without her knowledge on who had put the letter there and when the letter arrived and that she could not remember the content of the letter. The Prosecutors and the Panel of Judges did not question this issue in depth despite the letter being used by Rohainil as the basis for changing Pollycarpus’ schedule.   

Meanwhile, in several sessions of the witness examinations, Judge Liliek Mulyadi was often sleepy and repeated the same questions frequently while Judge Sugito never asked any questions.

 

(Footnotes)

1 Besides serving as the Chief Judge in the trial on Munir’s case, Cicut Setiarso also served as a judge in the

ad hoc Courts of Human Rights for East Timor case and Tanjung Priok case.

2 Indictment No. Reg Perkara PDM-1305/JKT.PST/07/2005, 27 July 2005

3 Delivered by KASUM (Komite Aksi Solidaritas Untuk Munir  or the Committee of Solid arity Action for Munir) in its  Press Conference on 12 August 2005

4 In the indictment, it is said that Pollycarpus previously had a schedule to Peking on 5 September 2004, which was changed to 6 September to Singapore.

5 When Indra’s testimony was confronted to Ramelgia in the next trial, Ramelgia said that he never talked about any complaints regarding lack of work performance at the Corporate Security and he never met Indra Setiawan to talk or ask for assistance. Indra Setiawan himself was consistent with his testimony.

6 Referring to the dossier: “Pollycarpus did not meet the requirements for aviation security.”

 

The witness answered, Pollycarpus’

assignment was nothing specific. It was only to monitor, not as a security actor, he was only as sisting corporate security. The duty of Aviation Security was to monitor that flights were according to international standards and dumping fuel was not the duty of aviation security.

7Rohainil was inconsistent in answering

the question about whether or not there was an obligation to report to the chief pilot regarding a pilot change of schedule. This was because: “in the beginning, Rohainil said that,  Pollycarpus’ change of schedule did not require his superior’s knowledge. She then said that she did not report the schedule change because Capt. Karmal Sembiring was not available and that she was reprimanded by the chief pilot because of it. Afterwards, Rohainil said that it was because Ramelgia would call Capt. Karmal Sembiring (which means that approval from the superior/chief Karmal Sembiring was necessary in Pollycarpu’ change of schedule to Singapore). 

8 From Ramelgia’s testimony, he said that he never assigned Pollycarpus to Singapore to check dumping fuel. Ramelgia said that the letter dated 5 September (already backdated from 15 September) contained only a request to permit Pollycarpus to be assigned at Corporate Security. Meanwhile from

Captain Karmal’s testimony: what

Pollycarpus said, that Ramelgia would call Karmal to inform about his departure to Singapore on Internal Security duty, was never proven. Instead, Ramelgia called on 15 September and even this took place after Karmal called Rohainil Aini and Pollycarpus because Karmal was told and asked by Captain Ronggo around 12/13 August about Pollycarpus’ departure and approval for his trip to Singapore.

 

Atty. Sri Suparyati is the head of the Advocacy Department of KontraS.  As a Lawyer, she appeared before the President of Indonesia, the Chief of Indonesian Police, the District Police of Kotawaringin Timur, Governor of Central Kalimantan, District Office of Kotawaringin, Timur on the issue of ethnic conflict in Sampit, Central Kalimatan and in Citizens’ Lawsuit of migrant workers in Nunukan.  She participated in the fellowship program in Transitional Justice in the University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Copyright 2007  AFAD - Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances
Web Design by: www.listahan.org