TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The inconsistent ruling of the trial in the alleged case of sexual abuse to students of Jakarta International School kindergarten -- now known as Jakarta Intercultural School (JIS) -- indicates that there is something wrong in the legal process.
To five JIS janitors who were named as suspects, the judges ruled that they were proven to have committed sexual violence and those janitors were sentenced to 7- 8 years in prison.
Afterwards, two weeks ago, a panel of judges at the appeal level at the Jakarta High Court freed two JIS teachers from the same charge.
In fact, both cases were based on the same evidence, namely medical examination.
The case began from a report filed by parent of one of the students of JIS kindergarten to the police, saying that their child was sexually molested at the school.
The police then made a fast move by detaining six janitors of the school and named them suspects.
In the investigation process, one of the suspects died and was said to have committed suicide.
Recently, the police have also named two JIS teachers Neill Bantleman and Ferdinant Tjong as suspects.
By using medical examination conducted at a number of hospitals and testimony of three children who became the victims and their parents, in April this year, the South Jakarta district court ruled that the two teachers were guilty and they were sentenced to 11 years in prison.
However, the high court then annulled the ruling made by the district court and declared that there was no strong evidence that sexual molestation was committed by the teachers.
The judges considered that the visum et repertum (medical examination) did not indicate any signs sexual violence. The judges also rejected the testimony of the witness who was still a minor.
The problem is, the same medical examination was also sued by the prosecutor to charge those JIS janitors.
For this case, up until the appeal level, the judges considered sexual molestation did happen, proven by the medial examination and testimony of the victims.
Certainly, every judge, at every level, every case, has authority and independence to interpret evidence and makes a ruling of a case.
However, different verdicts for two cases that are exactly similar with similar evidence clearly disturb our sense of justice.
Therefore, the prosecutor must bring the JIS teachers case to the appeal level.
To prevent this trial from becoming a misguided trial, at the appeal level the judge must weigh this case carefully.
For example, judges at the appeal level concluded that the medical examination did not prove that sexual violence was committed.
Is that a logical presumption?
Parent of the one of the victims said that according to the medical examination done at Pondok Indah hospital, in the rectum of their child they found blister, bleeding, and pus.
Also, the judges’ decision to ignore the testimony of the victims, is that a correct move?
In the legal practice, we recognize the principle of in dubio pro reo, that is if there is doubt whether the defendant is guilty or not, the judge must make a ruling that give benefits to the defendants.
It means that if at the appeal level – with serious efforts to prove the case — the judges remain in doubt the accusation made by the prosecutor to the two teachers, acquittal is already a correct move.
However, if that happens, then, for the sense of justice, the ruling to five JIS sanitary officers must be reviewed.
Besides, it is widely known that the testimony of the janitors to the police in the police interrogation report (BAP) that was used to incriminate them at the court was in fact made under torture.
(*)
