Rehabilitation Of Ira Puspadewi: Political Lobby Or A Form Of Justice?

JAKARTA The provision of rehabilitation is the prerogative of the president which is guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution. However, the decision to provide rehabilitation to Ira Puspadewi is considered to interfere with law enforcement in judicial institutions.

Presiden Prabowo Subianto memberikan rehabilitasi untuk mantan Direktur Utama PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry, Ira Puspadewi; mantan Direktur Komersial PT ASDP Muhammad Yusuf Hadi; serta mantan Direktur Planning dan Pembangunan PT ASDP Harry Muhammad Adhi Caksono.

However, the granting of rehabilitation to three former directors of PT ASDP sparked broad discussions about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) researcher Wana Alamsyah considers the provision of rehabilitation to the accused in a corruption case whose legal process is still ongoing or has just been sentenced to be a form of executive intervention towards judiciary. The provision of rehabilitation should not be influenced by public pressure or the virality of a case.

This rehabilitation began on November 20, 2025, when the Jakarta Corruption Court sentenced Ira Puspadewi to 4.5 years in prison, while Adhi Caksono and Yusuf Hadi were each sentenced to four years in prison.

They were stated to be involved in the alleged corruption case involving PT Jembatan Nusantara (PT JN) by PT ASDP Ferry Indonesia, which also dragged Adjie as the owner of PT JN as a suspect. However, only Adjie whose case has not been transferred to court.

This case is of widespread concern because there are no legal facts that the three defendants have received personal benefits in the Business Cooperation Process (KSU) and the acquisition of PT JN. This is also reinforced by Adjie's statement that he never gave money or goods to the defendants.

However, the actions of Ira Puspadewi, Muhammad Yusud Hadi, and Harry Muhammad Adhi Caksono are said to have enriched Adjie by Rp1.25 trillion. The actions of the defendants and Adjie have also harmed the state amounting to Rp1.25 trillion based on the State Financial Losses Calculation Report on Alleged Corruption in the KSU process and the acquisition of PT Jembatan Nusantara by PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry 2019-2022 on 28 May 2025.

However, one of the judges, namely Sunoto, expressed a dissenting opinion. He said that this case was not a corruption case, but a business decision that had not been optimal. The defendants have also had good intentions and precautionary principles which are marked by the absence of a conflict of interest and no malicious intent to harm state finances.

This case attracted the attention of the wider community, especially after no evidence was found that the suspect enriched himself or intended to harm the state. The public urged that Ira Puspadewi be released. In the midst of the viral case, President Prabowo provided rehabilitation for the three.

ICW researcher Wana Alamsyah considers that granting rehabilitation to defendants in corruption cases whose legal process is still ongoing or has just been sentenced is a form of executive intervention towards judiciary.

The granting of rehabilitation is the prerogative of the president as stated in the 1945 Constitution in Padal 14 paragraph (1) which states that the president grants clemency and rehabilitation by taking into account the considerations of the Supreme Court.

As with the granting of abolitions and amnesty, this right is also not accompanied by clear provisions regarding the procedures for providing funds, only the conditions that must be met to provide rehabilitation. In other words, the president has very broad authority to use these rights without any clear restrictions.

Wana explained that the president's intervention in court decisions was a form of weakening the judiciary as well as improving the principle of separating the branch of power.

The judiciary, said Wana, was built as a judiciary that is independent, transparent, and free from political intervention.

The practice of granting clemency, amnesty, rehabilitation, and abolitions that are carried out without transparency and accountability standards actually obscures these limits. If this practice is allowed to continue, the relevance of the appeal and cassation judiciary will be even more eroded," said Wana in a statement received by VOI.

Wana called this phenomenon a shift in the settlement of the case from the courtroom to the lobby. He is worried that the mechanism of proof that should be tested openly and independently in court is now being disallowed through a political decision behind closed doors.

It is not impossible, in the future, the defendant will be able to build a narrative of mercy to the president, frame a 'trial' by the media, and market sad stories whenever the court's decision does not benefit their clients.

"The public was finally led to participate in suppressing the executive, not to evaluate the legal arguments and evidence presented at the trial," said Wana.

This rehabilitation must be seen as a hazard bell for law enforcement independence. If corruptors can be free through political lobbying, even though the court declares guilty, this will be a bad precedent that undermines judicial authority," he added.

This is not the first time President Prabowo Subianto has been considered to have intervened in court decisions. Prior to rehabilitation for the three convicts of the ASDP case, last July Prabowo gave an abolition to former Trade Minister Thomas Trikasih Lembong and amnesty for PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto. Both of them became defendants in corruption cases and were convicted by the court.

At that time, a number of observers assessed that the president's granting of abolitions and amnesty had a thicker political aroma.

But a different opinion was conveyed by the Professor of Criminal Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia, Topo Santoso. He said that the granting of rehabilitation occurred because the convicts did not get justice from the judiciary. The judiciary, according to Topo, should be introspective.

Regarding the ASDP case, there are two sides that are highlighted. First, if the verdict is unfair, then it must seek justice. And, if a court institution cannot provide justice, then the parties must seek justice.

Dan, menurut saya, memang perkara itu (ASDP) dari berbagai sisi tidak adil. Misalnya, secara hukum pidana,mens rea tidak ada. Kemudian soal kerugian keuangan negara masih dipertanyakan, masih dibatung. Tapi, yang jelas, yang paling fundamental soalmens rea-nya tidak ada. Dalam hukum pidana, itu sangat fundamental, papar Topo.

In the context of the case involving Ira Puspadewi and the alleged corruption decision that dragged Tom Lembong, the judge's decision was questionable. Topo said the defendants did not get justice from a judicial institution that should be able to provide justice for justice seekers.

"Then, where do you go to get justice? Well, the President has the authority as head of state, to provide justice," said Topo.

"So now we have to introspect the world of justice. Why should the president as head of state intervene, who provides justice in the form of rehabilitation or abolition, or amnesty, why should that be? Now, meaning the people, society, defendants may already lack confidence that the world of justice can provide that," he said.