The brilliant history of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in eradicating corruption has been tarnished. For the first time, the Supreme Court (MA) has acquitted a defendant in a corruption case that the KPK had brought to justice.
In its appellate ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court acquitted the former head of the now defunct Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), Syafruddin Arsyad Temenggung. The court’s ruling was vastly different from the Jakarta Corruption Court\'s decision, which found Temenggung guilty and sentenced him to 13 years in prison, as well as the Jakarta High Court’s ruling, which upheld this verdict and to increased the sentence to 15 years.
The corruption and appellate courts had determined that Syafruddin\'s issuance of a clearance letter, which declared that the now defunct Bank Dagang Nasional Indonesia (BDNI) had paid all its debts, was an act of corruption.
The Supreme Court’s decision was not unanimous: Three justices lodged dissenting opinions. This is the first time a situation like this has occurred in the judicial process of a corruption case.
The justices all come from non-career paths.
The chairman of the judicial panel, Salman Luthan, upheld the high court\'s decision, while the two other justices granted Syafruddin\'s appeal. Justice Syamsul Rakan Chaniago argued that Syafruddin\'s case was a civil case, while justice Mohammad Askin viewed that the case fell under administrative law. The justices all come from non-career paths.
The KPK was surprised by the verdict. Syafruddin was free. However, whatever the court\'s decision may be, it must be respected. The difference in the three justices’ views indicates that the legal structure is not yet solid. What is the difference between criminal, civil and administrative law? Moreover, the decision to resolve the disputes over the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Support (BLBI) had already gone through the political process at the People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR) and legal analysis. Examining the court’s decision can add to our legal knowledge.
The KPK built its case against Syafruddin based on the events of 2004. This strategy failed at the Supreme Court, and the defendant was acquitted and freed.
Building a corruption case, especially over such a long period of time, requires solid evidence and strong legal arguments so that all judges will accept it.
The two Supreme Court justices had different views regarding how the KPK pursued the development of the case against Syafruddin. It was proved that Syafruddin had acted as he did, but the two justices were divided as to whether the case fell under the realm of civil law or administrative law.
We hope that the Supreme Court\'s ruling will not diminish the KPK\'s role in society. However, the KPK must be more careful in building its cases against old events. There must be strong conviction and evidence. The nation has not yet won in the war against corruption.
As the Supreme Court has ruled that losses had incurred to the state, but not corruption, the legal process to restore these losses to the state must continue. This can be done through either the criminal or civil process. The KPK can work with other law enforcement agencies to reclaim the unpaid debts, if they still exist.