The public viewed the cases of Joko Tjandra and Pinangki as an opportunity to clean up the judicial mafia. The people can only take note of the fact that their expectations have not been met.
By
KOMPAS EDITOR
·3 minutes read
Kompas/Heru Sri Kumoro
Pinangki Sirna Malasari answers questions from the public prosecutor during his trial as a defendant at the Corruption Court, Jakarta, Wednesday (6/1/2021). Pinangki is a defendant in the gratification case.
That the prosecutor\'s office would take the stance of not filing an appeal in the case of Pinangki Sirna Malasari had been expected. The judge\'s verdict is in line with the prosecutor\'s demand.
In the trial at the lower court, state prosecutors demanded that Pinangki be sent to prison for four years. However, the judicial panel handed down a heavier sentence of 10 years in prison. The judicial panel at the court of first instance argued that Pinangki\'s actions were complicated and concealed the identity of the kingmaker in the case that conspired to obtain an acquittal for Joko S. Tjandra, the convicted corruption fugitive. The trial revealed that Pinangki was a mere actor in a case that involved many parties. However, the judicial panel at the lower court was unable to uncover more details regarding the case.
At the high court, the judicial panel consisting of head judge Muhammad Yusuf, Haryono, Singgih Budi Prakoso, Lafat Akbar, and Renny Halida Ilham Malik reduced Pinangki\'s sentence from 10 to four years for accepting around Rp 5 billion in bribes. Their reasoning was that Pinangki had been dismissed as a prosecutor and she was a woman. The public\'s sense of justice was torn apart. The public wondered how a light sentence could be given for a transactional crime that handled legal cases and which involved officers of justice – prosecutors, police, and lawyers.
Pinangki’s behavior of was indeed unusual. As an ordinary prosecutor, she could freely meet corruption case fugitive Joko Tjandra in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It is natural that the public is questioning why Pinangki, who was not a prosecutor with executive powers, could meet the fugitive of a corruption case. Her name appears in the document outlining a scenario for the acquittal of Joko Tjandra.
Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo
Pinangki Sirna Malasari talks with her lawyer while undergoing a follow-up trial at the Corruption Court (Tipikor) at the Central Jakarta District Court, Monday (11/30/2020).
Looking at the case’s sociopolitical context and the network of related cases surrounding it, it seems natural that several activists expected the prosecution to file an appeal with the court of cassation to make room for the court to reveal the hidden actors in the case. However, the prosecutor’s office decided to accept the verdict on the grounds that the judicial panel had met their sentence demand, which falls within the authority of a state prosecutor, who must act to represent the public interest. The public can only watch how the principle of equality before the law will be enforced and justice is delivered.
With the prosecutor\'s decision not to appeal the court of cassation, the decision handed down to Prosecutor Pinangki now has permanent legal force. The opportunity to reveal the kingmaker’s identity has closed. The public viewed the cases of Joko Tjandra and Pinangki as an opportunity to clean up the judicial mafia. The people can only take note of the fact that their expectations have not been met.
Normatively, prosecuting members of the judicial system who violate the law should carry heavier sentences than for ordinary criminals. In some cases against politicians, additional penalties in the form of revoking their political rights are even handed down. Let history record the names of the judges and prosecutors in the Pinangki case, which seems to have involved differential treatment.
