Indonesia’s Constitutional Court threw out another challenge to the controversial anti-pornography law. According to Jakarta Post, activist lawyer Farhat Abbas filed a complained alleging that the law contradicted itself by punishing the storage of pornographic materials, but creating an exemption for personal use. The Court responded that the law is constitutional, and the court’s jurisdiction only allows it to determine the constitutionality of laws, not resolve internal contradictions. In the U.S., I suspect one might argue that the law’s internal contradictions make it “unconstitutionally vague” (and indeed much of U.S. vagueness jurisprudence seems to revolve around porn/obscenity cases), but I’m not aware of any such doctrine in Indonesian law.
Updates from the region
Lot’s of interesting bits of news, but not of a lot of time to post them. Here are some samples:
Myanmar/Burma: Talk about the tables turning! The National Unity Party, formerly Ne Win’s Burma Socialist Programme Party, has urged the government to adhere to the rule of law and release all political prisoners. If anything, the courts under the BSPP (1972-88) were even more of a mess than Myanmar’s current judiciary. However, the NUP’s current statements probably reflect the fact that out-of-power dictators prefer to live under the rule of law, in the belief that legal procedures can provide them with some protection from the current elite. Still, it’s an interesting twist to Myanmar’s political dialogue. Personally, I hope the opposition continues its focus on the rule of law, as that might be more palatable to the elites than “democracy.”
Malaysia: Yet another twist in the infamous Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial. This time, government chemists claim the DNA found in the alleged sodomy victim matched Anwar’s. I’ve already blogged frequently about the case, but needless to say it seems highly political. Asia Sentinel provides a good rundown of the case, the evidence, and the very suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged “victim.”
Philippines: The Supreme Court cleared a Court of Appeals justice of charges of gross negligence after she accepted a fraudulent contract into evidence. The deed was apparently signed in 2008 by an individual who had died in 2001. It’s not clear from the article exactly what the justice knew at the time of the case. However, I’m left wondering why anybody forging a contract would rely upon a signature that’s so easily falsifiable!
Comments Off on Updates from the region
Filed under Anwar Ibrahim, Burma, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines
Better not bring any "unfounded accusations"
While Burma’s new parliament has been seated for almost three months now, the Elections Commission has decided it will hear some of the complaints leftover from last November’s election. The statistics are revealing – of the 29 cases filed, 27 are by candidates from the pro-government USDP, while only 2 are from the opposition. However, another piece in an Irrawaddy article caught my eye:
A fee of 1 million kyat (US $1,136) is required to file an election fraud lawsuit with the authorities, and it carries a possible two-year jail term if the case is lost.
On Nov. 17, the EC told candidates who planned to challenge election results that they could be fined 300,000 kyat ($340) and sentenced to three years in prison if their accusations are deemed to be unfounded.
I have no background in election law, so I can’t really compare these punishments to other countries. However, they do seem somewhat harsh, especially given the vagueness of the term “unfounded accusations.” This all should discourage election-related litigation, and perhaps makes it all the more remarkable that opposition candidates have even filed any complaints. It will be interesting to see whether the cases are decidedly fairly. Last year, the commission received mixed reviews in that regard.
One might hope that by raising litigation costs, the commission would then decide any cases that it does receive impartially and efficiently. In other authoritarian regimes, high barriers to litigation or restrictions on the court’s jurisdiction have actually made the regime feel more secure in allowing some level of judges independence. For Burma, that might take some time, but might not be impossible over the longer term.
Public Interest Litigation for Dictator’s Rights
You don’t see this often: a Filipino lawyer has brought a lawsuit asking a Manila court to compel the Aquino administration to allow former president Ferdinand Marcos to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Filipino for Cemetery of the Heroes). Yes, that’s right, a Filipino lawyer is appealing to constitutional on behalf of one of history’s most corrupt rulers. Here are his claims:
• Whether or not the burial of the remains of Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani contravenes or undermines the constitutional principle (Article II Section 5) on the maintenance of peace and order and the promotion of the general welfare.
• Whether or not the refusal of President Aquino to allow the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan would be violative of social justice mandated under Article II Section 10 of the Constitution.
• Whether or not the refusal of Aquino to allow the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan would violate human rights as guaranteed by Article II Section 2 of the Constitution for every human person, including the Marcos family.
• Whether or not the refusal of the President to allow the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan would be discriminatory and a denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article II Section I of the Constitution.
• Whether or not the refusal of Aquino to allow the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan would be violating his duty to do justice to every man imposed under his oath of office provided for in Article VII Section 5 of the Constitution.
• Whether or not the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan will undermine Article XI Section 1 of the Constitution providing that public office is a public trust.
• Whether or not the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan will be in gross disregard of the mandate in Article XIV Section 3(2) of the Constitution that educational institutions shall among others inculcate respect for human rights, strengthen ethical and spiritual values and develop moral character and personal discipline.
• Whether or not the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan is in compliance with the mandate in Article XVI Section 7 of the Constitution for the State to provide immediate and adequate care, benefits and other forms of assistance to war veterans.
• Whether or not the refusal of Aquino to allow the burial of the Marcos remains at the Libingan would violate human rights as guaranteed by Article II Section 2 of the Constitution for every human person, including the Marcos family.
This is a legitimately “tough” case because while ideally you want to protect the human rights of every individual, including the Marcos family, it isn’t obvious that these rights are really “constitutional.” In other words, I’m not sure anybody has a constitutional right to be buried where they desire, especially when the location in question is a national cemetery. I honestly don’t know whether this lawsuit will be taken seriously or just dismissed quickly. One thing’s for sure: while the Philippines still faces struggles on the rule of law front, Filipinos are perfectly ready, willing, and able to utilize the courts for political purposes.
Comments Off on Public Interest Litigation for Dictator’s Rights
Filed under Marcos, Philippines
Blame the courts
First of all, I apologize for the sparseness of posts over the last week or so. I have finals coming up, so I’m afraid I won’t be able to write much for a while. However, here’s one piece of news I found interesting:
I’ve already written several times about the bickering between the Aquino administration and the Philippine judiciary. Now, in response to allegations that not enough has been done to punish those accused of murdering journalists, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda recently stated:
Those cases already in the court, I think the pressure from the journalists should be exerted towards the judiciary and not the executive branch.
I always worry when a government official calls for “pressure” to be exerted on the judiciary, even in human rights cases. I understand Lacierda’s basic point that the cases are out of the executive’s hands now, but the phrasing of his response suggests some animosity remains. As political scientists, we rarely get to listen in on politicians’ private conversations, so offhand comments like this are particularly noteworthy.
Comments Off on Blame the courts
Filed under human rights, Philippines, Supreme Court
Dominic J. Nardi, Jr. 
You must be logged in to post a comment.