Anti-Corruption Academics Ask The New Supreme Court Chair To Realize An Independent And Clean Court

JAKARTA - The election of Supreme Court Justice Sunarto as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (MA) has become a breath of fresh air in efforts to eradicate corruption. Sunarto is expected to be able to realize a clean justice and integrity far from intervention.

Hope emerged from the Judicial Commission (KY). The chairman of KY, Prof Amzulian hopes that Sunarto can bring change to the Supreme Court. So that the Supreme Court becomes a Supreme Court body and is increasingly trusted by the public.

The election of Prof. Sunarto as Chairman of the Supreme Court has become a breath of fresh law enforcement that is just and free from intervention. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will become a judicial body that is truly trusted by the public," Amzulian hoped in his statement Monday, October 28.

In addition, legal experts and anti-corruption activists also have the same hope in Sunarto. Currently, the Supreme Court as the last bastion to seek justice, is in the figure of Sunarto.

Experts warn Sunarto to be free from intervention in handling legal cases. One of them is in the process of handling the case of Review (PK) of the former Regent of Tanah Bumbu Mardani H Maming.

Sunarto was asked to really use the law in its place, and use his conscience in processing Maming's case. This is because there is a strong suspicion that Maming's case was deliberately engineered.

Experts such as Prof Romli Atmasasmita from Padjadjaran University assessed that there was legal error in the judge's decision.

Romli emphasized that Maming's charges and sentencing decisions were not based on legal facts, but rather based on the imagination of law enforcers.

"The legal process against the defendant not only shows a real mistake or mistake, but is a serious legal error," said the Head of the Corruption Eradication Bill and the Corruption Eradication Bill.

Apart from Romli, the founder of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) as well as human rights and anti-corruption activist Todung Mulya Lubis also highlighted the occurrence of heretical justice in handling corruption cases that dragged Maming into iron bars.

According to him, the verdict handed down to Maming did not have adequate evidence and seemed forced.

"The most striking form of miscarriage of justice is the lack of rights to fair trial. The judge carried out storypicking of the evidence presented during the trial. The judge preferred to consider the testimony of the indirect witness (testimonium de auditu) because it was in accordance with the indictment of the public prosecutor, rather than considering other evidence stating the opposite," said Todung.

He also believes that there is no element of justice in the verdict against the convict. "This kind of serious attitude is clearly an unfair trial. If the existing evidence is seen fairly, the public prosecutor's indictment is not proven," he added.

Todung also explained that the judge imposed legal construction in the legal events that occurred to conclude the fulfillment of elements in Article 12 letter b of Law no. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by Law no. 20 of 2001.

Meanwhile, the use of analogy as the basis for imposing a verdict is a serious violation of the principle of legality.

"The most visible application of legal construction is to make profit and distribution of business results a gift. By stating that the profit from the results of the business is the same as giving gifts, the judge is actually making an analogy. In fact, the analogy is a serious violation of the principle of legality, which is the most basic principle in criminal law," he said.

He also hopes that the Supreme Court will really evaluate the verdict that has been handed down to the convict after the stolen amicus was sent.

"Specifically, in Maming's case, I hope that the Supreme Court in the review process can really highlight the miscarriage of justice that occurred, and correct it. For that, I will prepare an amicus crime related to this case for me to send it to the Supreme Court next week," he said.

Similarly, Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Indonesia Prof. Dr. Topo Santoso, SH, MH also emphasized that Mardani Maming should be released immediately because of a judge's mistake. The academic who also serves as the Assistance Team for the Draft Draft Law on the Eradication of Corruption and the National Criminal Code Bill, stated that there were several things that showed the judge's mistake in judging Mardani Maming.

The court's decision on Mardani H Maming clearly shows a real mistake or mistake. The element of receiving gifts from articles charged is not fulfilled because legal acts in business processes such as fees, dividends, and debt receivables are civil relations that cannot be withdrawn in the criminal realm," he said.

Moreover, there was a Commercial Court decision taken in the open trial mechanism. The decision stated that there was no secret agreement, therefore there was no relationship because the defendant's decision as the Regent was to receive a fee or dividend.

"So there is no malicious intent (mens rea) on the defendant's actions. Thus, Mardani H Maming must be declared free," said the academic who is also an education teacher for the prospective Corruption Court Judge in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, a lecturer in Criminal Law at the UII Faculty of Law, Dr. Mahrus Ali, firmly assessed that Mardani H Maming did not violate all the articles alleged so he had to be released for the sake of law and justice.

"The decision collection is important, this is not only for Maming, but to strengthen public trust in the Supreme Court," said Mahrus Ali.