Case N° IDS/10 - SRI BINTANG PAMUNGKAS - INDONESIA

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 158th session
(Istanbul, 20 April 1996)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Having before it the case of Sri Bintang Pamungkas, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives, which has been the subject of a study and report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians in accordance with the "Procedure for the examination and treatment by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of communications concerning violations of human rights of parliamentarians",

Taking note of the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/158/13(a)-R.1), which contains a detailed outline of the case,

Taking into account the communication from the Speaker of the House of Representatives dated 26 March, and the information provided by the Indonesian delegation at a hearing held on the occasion of the 95th Inter-Parliamentary Conference (Istanbul, April 1996),

Taking into consideration the information provided by the sources on 15 February and 5 April 1996,

Considering that Mr. Pamungkas, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR), elected on a PPP (United Development Party) ticket and known as an outspoken critic of the Government, happened to visit Germany at the same time as President Suharto and gave lectures at a number of universities; considering also that during the President's stay in Hanover and Dresden from 1 to 6 April 1995, demonstrations took place against Indonesia's human rights policy,

Considering that President Suharto, on his return to Indonesia on 13 April 1995, reportedly stated that his Government would take strong action against Indonesians believed to be providing information or co-operating with individuals and groups outside Indonesia involved in organizing anti-Indonesian demonstrations,

Considering that after his return to Indonesia, Mr. Pamungkas was summoned by police for questioning as a witness on 18 and 19 April 1995 regarding a case involving violation of Article 134 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, which stipulates punishment for "insulting or undermining the dignity of the Head of the State",

Considering that, on 5 May 1995, he was again summoned for interrogation, this time on suspicion of having violated Article 104 (planning and organizing or instigating people to kill the President), Article 131 (factual assault against the President, kicking or punching him), Article 134 (insulting or undermining the dignity of the President) and Article 137 (distributing pictures or letters insulting or humiliating the President); considering that violation of Article 104 of the Penal Code carries the death penalty,

Considering that, in July 1995, the accusations against him shifted from participation in anti-Indonesian demonstrations to deliberately insulting President Suharto at a seminar he gave on 9 April 1995 at the Polytechnicum (Technische Hochschule) in Berlin,

Considering that, on 24 October 1995, he was indicted essentially on a charge of having, at that seminar, called both President Suharto and former President Soekarno dictators who violated the 1945 Constitution, and of criticizing the excessive role of the Indonesian executive,

Considering that the trial started on 20 October and that the sources expect the judgment to be given in early May,

Considering that, according to the source, when the investigations against Mr. Pamungkas started, the police were not even aware of the seminar he had given in Berlin on 9 April 1995 at a time when President Suharto had already left Germany, and that it was only after dropping, for lack of evidence, the accusations under Articles 104, 131, 134 and 137 of the Penal Code, that the accusation switched to statements made at the seminar in question,

Considering that, according to the source, the main exhibit is a transcript of a 180-minute tape-recording of the seminar which had lasted almost seven hours; that the allegedly offending sentences were taken out of context, incomplete and unclear; that, at any rate, Indonesian penal law does not accept tape-recordings as evidence,

Considering that at the hearing held on the occasion of the 95th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, the Indonesian delegation confirmed that, under Indonesian law, tape-recordings were considered insufficient evidence,

Considering further that, according to the source, the prosecution witnesses who had been contacted by the Indonesian Consulate General in Berlin and were flown in from Germany, were unable to explain the context in which the offending statements had been made,

Considering also that in his defending statement, Mr. Pamungkas explained that, as he had often done before and like many other Indonesians, he had indeed criticized the 1945 Constitution for being "executive heavy" and proposed an amendment to Article 7 of the Constitution, limiting the number of times a President can be re-elected,

Considering that on 13 March 1996 the Attorney General demanded a sentence of four years' imprisonment for Mr. Pamungkas; that, in his defending speech, Mr. Pamungkas stated, inter alia, that his trial was a political one aimed at silencing a Government critic, particularly in view of the 1997 parliamentary and the 1998 presidential elections,

Considering further that, according to the source, Mr. Pamungkas was interrogated in contravention of the necessary legal requirements under Law N° 13 of 1970 on police procedures against MPs,

Considering that, in February 1995, Mr. Pamungkas' party, the PPP, decided to "recall" him from his parliamentary seat, a decision which came into effect on 8 May 1995 after President Suharto had signed the official dismissal decree; that, however, Mr. Pamungkas is still a member of the PPP,

Considering that, according to the source, the "recall" procedure from parliament was flawed with numerous irregularities, in particular the fact that the required Government Ordinance regulating the recall procedure did not yet exist and that, generally speaking, a party's right to recall an elected member of Parliament was unconstitutional,

Considering that Mr. Pamungkas has brought a lawsuit against President Suharto before the Administrative Court for having infringed the proper legal procedures; that the Court declared itself incompetent to deal with the matter and that an appeal against that decision is pending,

Considering that at the hearing held on the occasion of the Istanbul Conference, the Indonesian delegation stated that, according to the Indonesian electoral system, people vote for the party emblem and not individual candidates; that the recall right belongs solely to the party, which may recall a member who does not conform to party rules and policy, and that the presidential decree ratifying the decision of the party is a purely formal matter,

Considering that, according to a member of the Indonesian delegation and member of the PPP leadership, Mr. Pamungkas had been warned several times, three times in 1994 alone, against deviating from the party line and making statements without consulting his party; that he had frequently been invited to explain himself before the party's leadership; that, however, he had usually declined to appear; that eventually, in February 1995, the party decided to recall him; that, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the "recall" procedure was launched in March 1995, prior to the incidents in Germany,

Considering that, according to the source, in May 1992 when the Party was campaigning for President Suharto as the only candidate for the 1993 elections, Mr. Pamungkas launched the idea of having more than one presidential candidate; in November 1993, he was warned because he challenged the military double function concept; there was no incident in 1994; finally, at a press conference in February 1995, he challenged the Minister of Finance as the latter warned some journalists not to mix opinions and facts, thus interfering with freedom of the press; that less than a week later, the Party decided to "recall" him,

Considering that, according to the delegation, the party was obliged only to discuss the "recall" with the leadership of Parliament - which it did - but not to hear Mr. Pamungkas; that Mr. Pamungkas is still a member of the party since membership ends only in the case of resignation, death or a switch of party allegiance,

Considering that, by virtue of a decision taken by the Attorney General on 17 April 1995, Mr. Pamungkas is banned from travelling abroad; that he has appealed against the decision and won the case in the first instance,

Considering that Mr. Pamungkas has also lodged a complaint against the chairmanship of his party, which is pending,

1. Thanks the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Indonesian delegation to the 95th Inter-Parliamentary Conference for the observations and information they provided and for their co-operation;

2. Stresses that the revocation of a parliamentarian's mandate is a serious measure which deprives MPs so affected of the possibility of exercising their electoral mandate and should therefore only be taken in strict compliance with the law and only on very serious grounds;

3. Notes with regret that Indonesian law empowers political parties to have representatives of the people "recalled", particularly in the light of the Council's constant position that, once elected, all members of Parliament hold their mandate by popular will;

4. Considers that in making the offending statements, as quoted in the indictment, Mr. Pamungkas merely exercised his right to freedom of expression, which would be quite meaningless if it did not include the right, in particular, of MPs to criticize the Executive;

5. Notes with concern that Mr. Pamungkas was first summoned and interrogated on suspicion of having participated in the demonstrations against President Suharto; that when no evidence of that could be found, the investigations, instead of being dropped, shifted to the seminar he gave on 9 April, and fears that this may denote a deliberate attempt to have him prosecuted;

6. Expresses deep concern that a transcript of a tape-recording which moreover reproduces merely three hours of a discussion that lasted almost seven hours, may be accepted as evidence against a person, and notes that the Indonesian delegation to the Istanbul Conference affirmed that tape-recordings were not sufficient evidence under national law;

7. Is concerned at the allegation by the source that Mr. Pamungkas' summons as a witness and suspect did not comply with the relevant legal provisions;

8. Notes that complaints regarding these matters are still pending before the Administrative Court;

9. Requests the Secretary General to convey these concerns to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, inviting him to apprise the Committee of any developments in this case;

10. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining the case and to report to it at its next session (September 1996).