12 Figures Ask Amicus Curiae In Nadiem's Pretrial Session

JAKARTA - A total of 12 anti-corruption figures from various fields volunteered as court friends (amicus stoleae) during the pretrial hearing of Nadiem Anwar Makarim at the South Jakarta District Court (Jaksel).

"The burden of evidence should be borne by the respondent, namely the investigator, not the applicant," said one of the court's (amici) friends who is also an anti-corruption activist Natalia Soebardjo in Jakarta, Friday, was confiscated by Antara.

Amicus steals at the Indonesian Dictionary of the Ministry of Education and Culture contains the meaning of impartial parties so that it can help provide opinions for a legal case.

According to him, anti-corruption figures urged that in the pretrial process, the respondent, in this case the investigator, be able to explain the reasons for the applicant to be suspected of being the perpetrator of a criminal act.

He said that these figures considered that the two pieces of evidence used as the basis for determining the suspect against the applicant were not strong enough to suspect the applicant as the perpetrator of the crime.

In other words, the petitioner's action determines that the suspect's status is not based on the concept of reasonable suspicion (realonable suspicion).

"Because basically it is the investigator who argued something, that there is sufficient preliminary evidence to suspect that the applicant is the culprit," he said.

By following these principles, they considered, in a pretrial hearing, the first thing that the respondent had to do was to explain the alleged crime and the reason he suspected someone as a criminal act.

This method, said Natalia, is considered important so that the public can also understand the law enforcement process and participate in supervising the emergence of a legal case.

"The public has the right to know clearly about what is being prosecuted. This is the importance of a legal process being carried out in a transparent, accountable and responsible manner. If it is implemented, public trust in law enforcement will be even higher," he said.

He added that the amicus theft was intended to encourage the pretrial on whether or not the determination of the suspect could run more effectively, efficiently, simply but on target.

This is because they see the pretrial examination process that has been running so far, obeying a mechanism that resembles civil procedural law with the principle of who argued that he was the one who proved it.

In fact, this principle is not appropriate for pretrial examinations that only exist in criminal law.

Those who volunteered consisted of anti-corruption figures and activists who had various backgrounds.

Here they are:

1. KPK Leader for the 2003-2007 Period, Amien Sunaryadi

2. Anti-Corruption Activists and Founders of the Indonesian Transparency Society (MTI), Arief T Surowidjojo

3. Senior Researcher of the Judicial Independence Study and Advocacy Institute, Arsil

4. Anti-Corruption Activist And Jury Bung Hatta Anti-Corruption Award, Betti Alisjahbana

5. KPK Leader 2003-2007, Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas

5. Writer and Founder of Tempo Magazine, Goenawan Mohamad

7. Activists and academics, Hilmar Farid

8. Attorney General for the 1999-2001 Period, Marzuki Darusman

9. President Director of PLN 2011-2014, Nur Pamudji

10. Anti-Corruption Activists and Members of the International Council of Transparency International, Natalia Soebagjo

11. Advocate, Rahayu Ningsih Hoed

12. Anti-Corruption Activist and Founder of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) Todung Mulya Lubis