Heru Hidayat Demanded The Death Penalty, Legal Expert: It Should Be A Social Assistance Case

JAKARTA - Trisakti University criminal law expert, Dian Adriawan, assessed that the public prosecutor (JPU) of the Attorney General's Office was wrong by demanding the death penalty against the President Director of PT Trada Alam Minerba, Heru Hidayat, in the alleged corruption case of PT Asabri (Persero).

Dian said that the indictment prepared by the prosecutor against Heru Hidayat did not contain Article 2 paragraph (2) of Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption.

According to Dian, the prosecutor's claim should have referred to the indictment. "If it's not in the indictment, it means that the prosecutor made a mistake when he included it (death penalty) in the criminal charge," in a written statement, Friday, December 10.

Dian said the points in the indictment were important because they became a corridor for judges to examine cases. In addition, he said, the indictment is a limitation for prosecutors in filing criminal charges for a defendant.

"If it is not in the indictment, then in the criminal charges there is Article 2 paragraph (2), that is a mistake by the public prosecutor. Because of this, what is in the indictment is also anticipated by the defendant in the evidence. Now, how can he (the defendant) anticipate Article 2 paragraph (2) if it is not in the indictment," explained Dian.

Dian agreed that Heru Hidayat's actions could not be categorized as repeating criminal acts. According to him, repetition of a crime occurs when a person has been found guilty by a court decision with permanent legal force, then after that commits a new crime.

"The repetition of an act occurs when there has been an action decided by the court and then a new act is carried out. That's called repetition. If this is the case together. The understanding put forward by the prosecutor is wrong in my opinion," he said.

In addition, continued Dian, the death penalty is more appropriate to apply in cases of corruption against funds used for handling and overcoming emergency conditions. He gave an example of an emergency such as a national disaster or a monetary crisis. Meanwhile, Heru Hidayat's corruption crime is not related to the emergency.

"Related to Article 2 paragraph (2), the death penalty is for emergency situations, certain situations. In fact, certain situations are appropriate, the most appropriate if applied to other cases, such as the case of social assistance. It happened during a pandemic, it should be a death sentence," he concluded.