As a result, the judicial panel rejected the charge because the prosecutor’s demand used an article other than those charged. The prosecutor will have to explain the judges’ consideration.
By
NASRULLAH NARA
·3 minutes read
Kompas/Hendra A Setyawan
The defendant in the alleged Asabri corruption case, Heru Hidayat, attends the verdict hearing at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Tuesday, 18/1/2022).
Controversy surrounds the Corruption Court’s zero punishment handed down to defendant Heru Hidayat, despite prosecutors demanding that he be give the death sentence.
On Wednesday, 19 Jan. 2022, the Corruption Court did not hand down a sentence to Heru for two reasons. First, the prosecutor did not include Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Corruption Law in the indictment against him. As a result, the judicial panel rejected the charge because the prosecutor’s demand used an article other than those charged. The prosecutor will have to explain the judges’ consideration.
Second, Heru had previously been sentenced to life in the Asuransi Jiwasraya corruption case. Because he had already received the maximum sentence allowed by law, the judges did not impose additional punishment. Heru, however, was still found guilty and must compensate Rp 12.6 trillion in state losses.
There are various interpretations of zero punishment. This either means that Heru is free of criminal charges in the Asabri corruption case regardless of the legal considerations, or it means nothing because Heru, as the president commissioner of Trada Alam Minerba, had received a life sentence in the Jiwasraya case that is legally binding.
What will happen if the defendant files for a judicial review over the Jiwasraya case after the legal and political constellations have changed, which could alter his sentence as well?
From the layman’s perspective, the question that arises is: How could Heru be sentenced to life in prison in the Jiwasraya case but given zero punishment in the Asabri case, which was almost the same in the scale of corruption and damages? The judges could have referenced the verdict for the Asabri case to the Jiwasraya case. What will happen if the defendant files for a judicial review over the Jiwasraya case after the legal and political constellations have changed, which could alter his sentence as well?
We do not want to interfere with the judiciary, which, according to the Constitution, is free from the influence of any power, including capital. The judges made their decision on a whim: “For the sake of justice based on the belief in one God.” The judges handed down the sentence in the name of God.
Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo (WAK)
The General Prosecutor (JPU) of the Attorney General's Office prepares to take part in a virtual hearing reading the demands of two defendants in the alleged corruption case at PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero), President Director of PT Hanson Internasional Tbk Benny Tjokrosaputro and President Commissioner of PT Trada Alam Minera Tbk (TRAM) Heru Hidayat , Thursday (15/10/2020).
We hope that the judges can understand that the public sense of justice could be hurt as a result of such a massive corruption case. Judges hold officium nobile (noble offices) and should be in touch with society’s sense of justice over the rampant corruption among the elite. The judge’s gavel can protect this country from falling down a well of corruption. Even the younger generation has already begun to commit acts of corruption, as in the case of the North Penajam Paser regent.
If judges only examine the case files, they may fail to hear the public outcry over how corruption has afflicted this country. Corruptors need to be punished severely. Capital punishment is justified by law, but is still determined by the conviction of individual judges.
The sentence of zero punishment has given rise to a sociological controversy. Why is this verdict not equal to a life sentence in the sociological sense? Regardless of the criminal aspects, however, recovering state losses must remain a priority.
