Why was Forkorus charged 3 year imprisonment?
Ilustrasi Dokumen

Why was Forkorus charged 3 year imprisonment?

Forkorus

Andawat – In reading of the verdict against Forkorus cs, the judges weighing is considerably firm against single accusation from the general attorney. Subversive nature and other qualities were proven. Even the judges only used the witnesses’ statements which only read during court sessions and the judges elaborated in detail the locus of KRP III and the defendants’ argumentation on citizenship as subversion. However, the punishment granted were lesser than what the general attorney charged.

The 3 (three) year charge could be as a result of the judges who were taking into account of certain aspects outside the realm of law while they were still doubtful about the trial facts. The assembly of judges did not give legal argumentation at all about granting 3 (three) year punishment. It is clear now that, there  is only a single authority. Subversive actions are charged in view of which argumentation was to be carried on by the judges.

The 3 (three) year punishment has saved the judges from authorities’ intervention which pushed them to bring verdict of guilty to Forkorus. The 3 (three) year punishment has shown the attorney general’s weak legal argumentation, yet this has still saved the attorney general of not bringing no charges. The 3 year punishment was likely to show particular achievement of the lawyer team when giving legal assistance to Forkorus, yet 3 (three) year is weird and strange. Number 3 (three) is like a ‘compromise’ number for all.

The judges have finished their tasks by managing the court sessions and scenario of the charges. Now, it is the task for the general attorney and the defendants as well as the lawyer team since such decision would not be in agreement with what the general attorney, the defendants, and the lawyer team. Will the general attorney, the defendants, and the lawyer team accept the decision? Or Will they file appeal with the consequence of getting higher charges from Jayapura court judges.

3 (three) year punishment for subversive actions is indeed lesser, so to speak. In the past when the judges charged with higher punishment, the judges even increased the charges a bit higher as found in the charge for Wamena case (2003) or Philep Karma and Yusak Pakage (2005). Now, when the general attorney filed lesser charges, the judges even brought it far lesser. This has shown that the demand for democracy has put charges on subversion with no relevancy.

In fact, courts do not always comply with authorities’ interests. Punishments charged against suspects of subversive actions will be gradually lessening. Some judges are even bravely annulled chapters on subversion for example on the trial of Buktar Tabuni (2009).

Charges on subversion tend to bring controversy. Judicial aspects has not been able to stand alone. Any inputs coming in throughout the course of a trial still have impact on judges’ views in bringing on charges.

Politically, judges have shown their good awareness when responding to public aspiration in a democratic country and balanced it with authorities’ interventions. Now, let us wait for how police would stand on this. If police would keep the same position to treat people’s aspiration as subversion then police is deemed conservative and not progressing. Is that what the police is or due to certain interventions from authorities as well?

It is the time for Police as a spearhead of law enforcement in the field to end criminalization against any acts of democracy staged by people, labeling subversion. Yet, the criminalization has not always been supported by considerable evidence. For example, it presented witnesses who were majority of police officers themselves.

The defendants, Forkorus cs, stated,”we fight in prison, we fight outside prison, we are not afraid.” Forkorus’ attitude is similar to other Papuans who have been accused of subversion. Thus, bringing guilty charges through judicial institutions does not a good solution to keep Papuan people to be loyal to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.

On the contrary, the legal handlings of KRP III are widening the room for conflict between Papuan people and Indonesian government. Criminalization of political problems is not the right solution to deal with problems in Papua. It is not all about the weigh of the punishment to lay on that touches the people to lay their trust on Indonesian government but more to what the government merit doing for Papuan people outside court rooms. (Andawat/ALDP)