Trial by the press, or the press on trial? Those were two viewpoints that emerged when the Central Jakarta District Court ruled Tuesday that Tempo magazine had defamed Asian Agri in a January report that accused the agribusiness giant of tax evasion.

Judges called the Tempo report "malicious and unbalanced", describing it as trial by the press.

We stand together with all echelons of civil society in expressing regret over the verdict, which from the beginning was marred by inappropriate use of the law.

The court's failure to judge the case under the 1999 press law created a faulty pretense under which the facts and circumstances of the case could not be fully appreciated.

Perhaps the single greatest struggle of the Indonesian media since the fall of the Soeharto government has been the recognition of a free press under the jurisdiction of a special law as defined in Law No. 40/1999 on the Press.

Failure to use this law amounts to criminalizing the press irrespective of the grievance brought by Asian Agri against Tempo.

The media has no immunity, and should be accountable to the general public in carrying out its duty as the fourth estate. However, judgment should be passed in accordance with the appropriate parameters as set under national laws.

The tendency to ostracize the Press Law is arguably the most onerous element of this particular case.

The Indonesian press has been on a topsy-turvy roller-coaster ride over the past decade – from systemic censorship to unbridled freedom, threats of thuggery to tacit acceptance of free expression.

As the boundaries of freedom are forever being negotiated, it is important to persistently remind a media-literate public of the values of a free press.

Echoing Milton's and John Stuart Mill's centuries-old concept of an open marketplace of ideas, it has thus become integral that any true democracy have a free press to facilitate the citizens' right to decide, based on their own reasoning, on a course of action.

We may forget that during Indonesia's own struggle for independence, the press played a strategic role in fostering the ideals of nationhood and addressing the offenses of colonial powers. That is why Article 4 of the 1999 law clearly guarantees the inherent right to press freedom.

But we must also recognize the ideals of a responsible press – one that does not glamorize violence or promote prejudice. Our press and its supporting law do not simply shelter defamers, rather than the defamed.

Hence Article 1 of the Press Law also sets out the responsibilities of the press vis-a-vis its public, such as an individual's right of reply and the responsibility of the press to correct any errors or oversights in its reportage.

The culture and history of Indonesian journalism is one of not sacrificing private reputation for the sake to a free press.

Even the Press Code of Ethics acknowledges the duties of the press in maintaining balanced reporting and the presumption of innocence.

We do not believe it is sacrilegious to indict the media for false reporting. However, only when the appropriate laws and articles are applied can we say that justice has been done.

While the application of the Criminal Code in the case against Tempo is of concern, it is premature to frame the court ruling as a sign of the demise of press freedom.

We are of the firm opinion that the national political will remains strong enough to ensure press freedom is a transcendent value.

This case, in fact, should lead to national activism to put an end to persistent infractions – the improper application of laws and the unholy trinity of power, money and the courts – which have become a pox on the body politic.

For its part, the press must spare no effort to reinforce its professionalism and bolster its integrity.

It must persistently assess its own consistency in staunchly applying the principles of balanced journalism and ethical reporting.

We, the Indonesian press, must realize that freedom of the press is a qualified liberty, beholden to the trust of the general public.

In the end, neither media nor might has a monopoly on what's right.