TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The verdict of Judge Sarpin Rizaldi in granting the pretrial motion of Police Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan is not only questionable, it makes no sense. The judge determined that Budi was not a law enforcer at the time of his alleged crime, hence his indictment for corruption by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is legally flawed.
Budi's position from 2003 to 2006, when he was charged with accepting bribes and gratuities from officers seeking promotions, was chief of career development at the Office of the Deputy Police Chief in charge of Human Resources. Judge Sarpin determined that the position required Budi to carry out only administrative tasks, unlike other police officers who must pursue and investigate criminal cases. As such, according to Sarpin, Budi should not be investigated by the KPK.
That verdict goes against everything written in our Constitution. Article 4 of the Criminal Code says that investigators comprise all police officers authorized to receive and follow-up on criminal cases. This is reinforced and disseminated in Article 1 and 15 of the Law on the Police, which basically underline that each and every policeman is a law enforcer.
It is incorrect to determine that the chief of the career development bureau is a civilian, not a law enforcer. In this capacity, he is authorized to provide recommendations to his superiors on which officers are qualified to be promoted or re-posted. It is precisely this position that was abused by Budi. It is true that the final decision of Budi's recommendation was in the hands of his superior, the deputy police chief in charge of human resources. But Budi held other powers to his own advantage. As a former aide to a president, his recommendations were almost never rejected.
The KPK must investigate this corruption committed by an official of the state, and that includes civil servants. There is no question, Budi Gunawan as a police officer, is also a civil servant, as mandated by the Law on the Police. In fact, even if he was not in charge of career development, let's say he was a mere private, he would still be investigated by the KPK, if he had accepted bribes and gratuities. This anti-graft commission has the data to prove that Budi's bank account consists of deposits from questionable sources.
With all those legal flaws, the Judicial Commission must immediately look into the strange verdict of Judge Sarpin Rizaldi, who can be charged with violating procedures and the code of ethics. Following the week-long testimonies of former KPK investigators in court, it was clear there was no convincing evidence to indicate that the indictment of Budi Gunawan was manufactured or forced. More importantly, Judge Sarpin violated Article 77 of the Criminal Code, which says that indictments should not be a pretrial motion. In other words, instead of trying the case, he should have dismissed it.
To restore the legislation to its rightful place, the KPK must submit Judge Sarpin's verdict for a review by the Supreme Court. The review of the case against Chevron last year can be used as an example of jurisprudence. At that time, the judge had annulled the previous judge's pretrial motion accorded to the accused. As in the case of Budi Gunawan, the plaintiff also questioned the legality of his indictment. (*)
