Soroti Lawyer on the KPK's Objectivity in the Alleged Corruption Case of Hajj Management

JAKARTA - Heru Krisbianto's lawyer considers the handling of the alleged legal case that dragged former Minister of Religion Yaqut Cholil Qoumas in the management of the hajj to be a serious test for the objectivity of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). He reminded that law enforcement should not shift to criminalizing public policy.

Heru, a lawyer from HK Law Firm. said that eradicating corruption is indeed a constitutional mandate. However, according to him, the extraordinary authority possessed by the KPK must be balanced with the same great caution.

"When extraordinary authority is not balanced by extraordinary caution, what is born is not justice, but a dangerous precedent," Heru said in a written statement, Wednesday, March 4, 2026.

He highlighted the complexity of managing the hajj, which includes quota diplomacy, service distribution, financing, and risk management. In practice, he said, decisions in the sector are often discretionary and collective.

According to Heru, in the doctrine of administrative law, policy errors (policy error) cannot be automatically qualified as a criminal act. If every policy that is the subject of public debate is prosecuted, he assesses that it has the potential to turn the law into an instrument of fear among bureaucrats.

"Officials will choose not to make any decisions rather than risk being criminalized," said Heru.

Heru questioned a number of fundamental aspects in the case, including the absence of evil intent (mens rea), personal gain, and proof of real and legitimate state losses. Without clarity and strong evidence, he assessed that the legal process had the potential to lose its moral legitimacy.

He also reminded that the burden of proof is entirely on law enforcement, not on public opinion, political pressure, or media framing. Two valid pieces of evidence, he said, should not be merely administrative formalities, but should be able to show the construction of the criminal event in its entirety.

"The determination of a suspect is not a verdict. However, in social-political practice, the label of a suspect is often a reputation punishment. At this point, caution is not just an ethics, but a legal obligation," said Heru.

Regarding the element of state losses, Heru emphasized that in corruption cases, state losses must be real, measurable, and have a direct causal relationship with the questionable actions. If the policy is carried out within the authority of the position, without personal gain, and through institutional mechanisms, then the personal prosecution is considered problematic.

He also reminded of the potential for a "chilling effect" if public policies are easily criminalized. This condition, according to him, can make public officials tend to be defensive and avoid discretion, resulting in administrative stagnation.

"Criminal law is the ultimum remedium, not the first tool to correct policies. If there is a suspicion of maladministration, the audit and administrative supervision mechanisms should be prioritized," said Heru.

Heru explained that this case was a test for the KPK in maintaining its integrity and objectivity. The KPK, he said, was formed to strengthen the rule of law, not to expand the interpretation of criminal law without limits.

"Strict enforcement of the law must go hand in hand with protection of the principle of legality and the presumption of innocence. The rule of law must not be subject to sensation, but must be subject to evidence," concluded Heru.