Friday, June 11, 2010


On 3 June, the Jakarta High Court ruled that two Vice Chiefs of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Bibid Samad and Chandra Hamzah, must be Prosecuted for alleged Extortion and Abuse of Power.

This ruling confirmed the verdict of South Jakarta District Court which accepted the Pre-Trial request filed by Anggodo who rejected the District Attorney's cessation of Prosecution against both men, therefore the trial should be resumed.

According to the Criminal Procedural Law the above High Court's ruling is final for Pre-trial cases, therefore the District Attorney should resume its Prosecution at the District Court.

Many legal experts suggested the Attorney General Office to close down the said case on the grounds of public interest. But yesterday, Attorney General Hendarman Supanji announced that his office plan to initiate an extraordinary procedure for this case, i.e. request a Judicial Review with the Supreme Court.

Please find below a news report that I quoted from The Jakarta Globe.

AGO Takes Its KPK Battle to Supreme Court

The Attorney General’s Office on Thursday announced that it would mount an extraordinary challenge to a High Court ruling that overturned its decision last year not to prosecute a controversial case against two antigraft deputies.

It plans to file a request for a judicial case review directly with the Supreme Court.

“The AGO will undertake an extraordinary legal effort, or a case review, regarding the ruling of the High Court in the pretrial case with the reasoning that the considerations of the judges in that ruling showed a real mistake,” Attorney General Hendarman Supandji said.

Speaking at President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s office after consulting with him on the case, Hendarman said his office would not directly appeal the decision, as the law does not allow appeals of pretrial rulings.

Two Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) deputies, Chandra Hamzah and Bibit Samad Rianto, were declared suspects in September for allegedly abusing their powers and committing extortion related to a case involving graft fugitive Anggoro Widjojo.

However, the AGO was forced to halt the case in December after the Constitutional Court played shocking wiretapped phone conversations indicating a plot to bring down the two and after Yudhoyono urged the termination of the case amid a public uproar.

The AGO was criticized afterward for not halting prosecution by invoking the public interest — known by the Dutch term “deponering.”

But Hendarman said on Thursday that this had also been out of the question as it would have been time-consuming, requiring the approval of all three branches of the government — the executive, judicial and legislative.

He pointed out that the legislature had requested that the case be processed in line with the Code of Criminal Procedures, which does not recognize the dropping of a case, while the High Court, part of the judicial branch, had ordered the trial to proceed.

Meanwhile, Muhammad Ama­ri, the deputy attorney general for special crimes, confirmed that the current status of Chandra and Bibit was still as suspects, based on the High Court ruling, which upheld a district court decision, that insisted the prosecution should proceed.

“They are suspects now,” Amari said. “But we see no reason we should detain them.”

The law requires a suspect to be detained if prosecutors have reason to worry that he or she will flee justice, repeat the offense or destroy evidence, “but we believe Chandra and Bibit will not do that,” Amari told a news conference at the AGO.

“We have only two remaining options: go to court [to challenge the decision] or request a case review,” he said. “We decided to ask for a case review because we believe we were right when dropping the case.”

A case review requires new evidence or strong argumentation to be presented, and Amari said the two courts had made “a blatant mistake” that the AGO may challenge.

“In their verdicts, the courts ruled that once prosecutors declared a criminal case as complete, it must be brought to the court for trial, whereas Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedures allows us to examine further and assess whether or not it’s worth trying by the court.

Other articles in the code allow us to terminate a case when we eventually find that it’s not worth trying,” Amari said.

Renowned legal expert Todung Mulya Lubis denounced Hendarman’s decision as ambiguous because a case review would be time-consuming, the very reason the chief prosecutor used against the deponering option.

“The best option remains deponering. It produces a solution once and for all,” Todung told the Jakarta Globe, adding that halting the prosecution would be “to rescue the Corruption Eradication Commission, not just Bibit and Chandra.”

Taufik Basari, the lawyer for Bibit and Chandra, said his clients’ concern was not having to face the court, but that if the case went to trial “then the judicial system legitimizes a fabricated case and rules in favor of a man like Anggodo.”

Taufik also said naming his clients as suspects would lead to their suspension from the KPK, leaving only two active deputy commissioners.


Yari NK said...

Harry, I am a little bit confused at this case. Though I know whom should I 'side with' (hmmm.... is it?). All I hope is simple, that KPK can get back on their feet again and do the service to the society by eradicating corruptions in this country...

ph-internet said...

I often hear of corruption in Indonesia but I also never heard of collusion and nepotism ..
why only corruption in the note?
where collusion and nepotism?

Edwin's Personal Blog said...

It's sad to see the law crossed by the notorious people. I wonder if this will ever end...

Blog Ekspor Impor said...

Law has never been so glorious in the nation..

berita untuk negri said...

an act done not for the lord but should be doing to myself personally and also future generations in order not to imitate
Do you agree?

H. Nizam said...

This case is complicated indeed,
but some says that it being made complicated. Many others say that KPK has been too eager in doing their job that they crossed the
"grey" line e.g when Antasari started to eavesdrop on Susno and
Anggodo, etc.

Yeah, I agree the we should also pay attention to collusion and nepotism because they are the roots of corruption.

In the end it will have to end, but we don't know who'll be the winner.

@Blog Ekspor Impor,
Let us hope that in the future supremacy of law will became a reality in Indonesia.

Berita untuk negeri,
If every citizens do our best for ourselves, family, and our country Indonesia will surely a much better place to live.

Basil K Kurian said...

ok...... your blog is good.. i am start following........

H. Nizam said...

Thanks a lot. Let's keep in touch.

colson said...

Here we go again...

The legal system has it's own logic. Though it sometimes is counter-productive, it's inevitable it will follow it's own course. However it's artificial reality sometimes ( and it looks like in this case also) leads to a waste of time, money and absurd results. Now Chandra and Bibit obviously got caught in between the cogwheels of that system. Alas, alas.

Yet, if the prosecutor is a sensible man/woman, convinced he/she has no real case against both men*, he/she after thorough deliberation will conclude he will ask for acquittal.

* since the previous "deponeren* means the prosecutor has already concluded in an earlier stage he/she had no case and new real new facts have not been presented, the only conclusion can be he/she once more will have 'no case'. This time however he/she will not be able to drop the case within his/her own discretion, but bring it to court. Yet he/she can ask the court to acquit the defendants. And probably that's exactly he/she will do.

I think that would be the right outcome in this case.

H. Nizam said...

Hi Colson,
As always, you have given a very clear view about the case. Actually after Prez SBY declared that he wished to have this case settled out of court, based on the law the Attorney General Office could closed (deponeer) the case based on public interests, therefore definitely stopped. However he choose to stop the case based on sociological reasons, which is contestable in court.
Our criminal procedural law stipulated that decision of high court for pretrial case is final - cannot be appealed again. And now the Attorney General Office is planning to take an extraordinary step i.e. request Judicial Review which is not yet known for Pre- trial cases, with very strict conditions.
People are getting sick and tired of all the "procrastination" in the handling of corruption cases that they prefer the case to be settled ASAP i.e. by closing the case once and for all based on public interest i.e. urgent need to maintain Bibid and Chandra in their position so as to keep KPK and fight against corruption exist.

Kiwi Riverman's Blogesphere said...

While I'm unclear about how youe system works, Harry, the law must be above politics and the politicians must obey and respect the ultimate legal decision.


H. Nizam said...

Hi Peter,
Actually we adopted similar basic legal concept adopted by other democratic countries:
- Supremacy of Law
- Equality before the law
- Presumption of Innocence
Only the implementation often filled with intervention by political powers.