UII Academics Highlight Judges' Precision In The Mardani Maming Case

JAKARTA Law practitioner at the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) Dr Muhammad Arif Setiawan also highlighted the case that ensnared Mardani H Maming. Based on the study conducted, the court that was sought should not be who won and lost but the truth.

"To what extent did the judge really study the pledoi given by the defendant," said Muhammad Arif when speaking at CNN talk show quoted Friday, November 1.

The case that ensnared Mardani H Maming is about mining licensing. Where the licensing has actually gone through studies in the regions to the center. In fact, the IUP issued has received a clear and clean certificate (CNC) from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) for 11 years. From the facts of the trial, the IUP transition process has also received recommendations from the head of the Tanah Bumbu Mining and Energy Service (Distamben) who stated that the process is in accordance with applicable laws, plus the initials from the Regional Secretary, the Head of Law, and Kadistamben.

Arif added, the importance of the judge's accuracy in deciding a case in court so that his decision is correct in accordance with legal principles.

He considered that the judge's decision in the case that ensnared Mardani Maming had not fulfilled the criminal element that should have been considered by the decision maker before the court verdict.

"The indictment actually contains two very important contents. Statements about material acts and statements about violations of the law are made," he said.

Law enforcement should be careful and thorough in analyzing these elements, both formal and material. Thus the decisions taken can be scientifically accounted for and positively in force.

"Therefore, the violation of the law must be what article is violated. There is, whether the defendant made a mistake related to the indictment. Thus, one thing that must be proven is an element. The offense element that is suspected is proven or not," he explained.

Professor of Law at Diponegoro University (Undip) Prof. Yos Johan Utama added that the judge's decision to criminalize Mardani H Maming had an error. Based on the study, Yos Johan criticized the sentence handed down by the judge against Mardani H Maming regarding the articles that were tightened.

He stated that Mardani H Maming's decision as Regent regarding the transfer of IUP from the administrative legal aspect was legal and was never declared null and void by the State Administrative Court (PTUN), which is an authorized court in the realm of administrative law.

Moreover, there is a decision by the Commercial Court which has been signed and stated that it is purely a business relationship and is not a secret agreement.

The Corruption Court, which is a criminal court, does not have the authority to assess the validity of the administrative decision. Therefore, there is no administrative law violation that can be used as a criminal basis, and the defendant cannot be punished," he said.

He continued, the panel of criminal judges was suspected of making a mistake and was wrong because the provisions used as the basis for being accused of being the convict were Article 97 paragraph 1 of Law 4 of 2009 concerning mining, minerals and coal were wrong addresses, because the prohibition was intended only for IUP and IUPK holders.