South Jakarta District Court Judge Sarpin Rizaldi read a decision filed by Budy Gunawan on Monday 16 February. He fulfilled BG’s request and stated to name him a suspect was not valid. According to a lecturer of Criminal Law of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (UMY) Dr. Trisno Raharjo, S.H., M.Hum., although the court acceded a request of BG and asserted an invalid decision of BG as a suspect, Corruption Eradication Corruption (KPK) could still stipulated BG through inserting new proof.
“Once the judge declared that Sprindik (letters ordering the start of an investigation) is not legal, the sprindik could not be employed to name BG as a suspect. Nevertheless, not naming him as a suspect does not mean that he could not be a suspect again. There is possibility to name him as a suspect if KPK has other evidence dealing with BG’s case. The loss of a suspect stipulation in pretrial hearing could not be implied that BC may not be a suspect. There is a possibility of naming him a suspect if KPK adds other evidences to support the previous ones considered as invalid evidence in the court,” expressed the lecturer of Criminal Law of UMY.
Trisno said that the legal force of naming BG a suspect is only on Sprindik by KPK. “If KPK believes that more evidences exist and could be reprocessed. Thus, the suspect could be determined again, but it is the authority of KPK whether or not BG is a suspect,” explained Trisno.
Trisno elucidated that, if President would inaugurate BG as KAPOLRI, it was President’s decision, whether President would notice probability of renaming BG a suspect or President would remain inaugurating BG without regarding possibilities of law, which might emerge toward the status of BG as KAPOLRI.
Trisno added that BG has right to repurposed pretrial if he was determined as a suspect. “If BG is renamed as a suspect, he could repurpose pretrial. However, it is supposed to be approved by the judge, and the judge might not be the same. Therefore, it could be accepted or rejected. It is entirely the court authority to investigate a proposed request. This case is only regarding the aspects,” he said.
Moreover, responding to an issue of judicial review (PK), Trisno stated that it could normatively not be carried out, but he argued that the remedy is allowed. “I think that PK could not be conducted. Nevertheless, due to law, BG may attempt this. When he tries this, the system may be distracted. This law system would not be clear, whether this case could be examined, because the judicial review is not for pretrial case. Pretrial refers to a simple matter discussing valid or invalid arrest, detention, investigation termination, and prosecution termination. The investigation is not for multi stages, it is adequate for once, and we ought to accept the decision.
Furthermore, Trisno noticed that what BG did would be beneficial for the development of Indonesian law. It might be probable that each suspect could propose pretrial to investigate the suspect decision to a prospective suspect. However, he contended that it would be the judge’s matter whether or not he could be consistent, whether he is willing since it was BG and it could be established for everybody. Hence, this issue stakes the legal system and judge credibility.
