TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Chairman of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat met with Indonesians during his visit to Austria. On Monday evening, March 23, 2015, Arief was meeting with Indonesians at the Indonesian Embassy in Vienna. Arief, who earned his doctor of law from Diponegoro University, Semarang, defended the decision of Judge Sarpin Rizaldi who issued a pre-trial decision that terminates Budi Gunawan's status as a suspect for owning suspicious account by the Corruption Eradication Commission.Tempo journalist Tito Sianipar had a brief talk with Arief regarding judge Sarpin's decision after the meeting ends. Excerpts;
You compliment judge Sarpin's decision?
I don't, it was just …..you know…a judge can do that.
What do you mean?
A judge can invent a new law.
But according to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the decision of a person as a suspect is not subject to a pre-trial?
It's not like that. In Indonesia, a judge is not the outlet of legislations. A judge could invent a law.
But most pre-trial cases related to the decision of a person as a suspect were rejected by judges.
Judges can have different opinions. But progressive judges can invent laws that are not the outlet of prevailing legislations.
One of judge Sarpin's consideration was that Budi Gunawan was not a law enforcer and state administrator at the time (of the crime suspected)…
For me, a judge can invent a law. It's up to him, it depends on his belief. It is the judge's authority to make a decision
Article 77 of the KUHAP does not regulate the decision on suspect status. There's only apprehension, arrest…
Yes. But then the judge has his own opinion and he can invent a law.
But in the context of Budi Gunawan (case), what was violated?
Pre-trial is just a control mechanism in the investigation process. If it is so, then the KPK should begin a new research, a new investigation based on prevailing norms. If KPK believe (the crime) exists, then conduct another research and investigation.
How about taking legal action against Sarpin’s decision, a case review perhaps?
Just take a legal action. The thing is, if the KPK does not (take a legal action) it means they acknowledged (the decision) and accepted it. That is the problem. There has to be a legal action. If there are new evidences, (KPK can apply) for a case review.
(*)