KPK oh KPK

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.