Lawyer Yaqut Simpulkan KPK Mixes 2 Different Legal Regimes in Determining Suspects
JAKARTA - The team of lawyers for former Minister of Religion Yaqut Cholil Qoumas concluded that the investigation process conducted by the KPK against his client must comply with the new KUHAP rules. The legal team for Yaqut said that the implementation of the new KUHAP must be carried out because the determination of the suspect was carried out after the new KUHAP officially came into force.
In its conclusion, Yaqut's legal team explained that the determination of suspects against his client in the Hajj quota case was carried out based on the investigation order (sprindik) dated January 8, 2026. Meanwhile, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code only officially came into force on January 2, 2026.
According to Yaqut's lawyer team, the trial facts also show that the sprindik before January 2, 2026 is still a general sprindik, still in the stage of finding evidence and finding suspects. It is known that before the sprindik 8 January 2026, the KPK first issued a sprindik on 8 August 2025 and 21 November 2025.
"This means that for the Applicant, the specific investigation process only begins after the New Criminal Procedure Code comes into force, so the provisions that must be obeyed are Article 361 letter b of the New Criminal Procedure Code as a transitional provision, which must be read as a unit with Article 3 Jo. Article 618 and Article 622 of the New Criminal Code," said the legal team of Yaqut, quoted from the conclusion that the file was submitted to the pretrial judge at the South Jakarta District Court, Monday, March 9.
Yaqut's legal team also assessed that the KPK was not consistent in applying the law. The Yaqut party said that the KPK still included Article 2 paragraph (1), Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law (UU Tipikor) and Article 55 of the old Criminal Code in the notification letter of the determination of suspects.
"But at the same time (KPK) actually uses a mechanism that is known in the new regime, namely the Letter of Notification of the Determination of the Suspect," said Yaqut's lawyer team.
"Thus, the issue is not only that the Respondent uses a norm that has been revoked, but also that the Respondent has mixed two different legal regimes in one act of determining a suspect," he added.
In addition, Yaqut's legal team also concluded that his client was not given the opportunity by the KPK to defend himself. Because, according to them, Yaqut was never questioned as a potential suspect.
"In fact, according to the statements of criminal experts submitted at the trial, the examination of a person as a potential suspect is an important part of the series of investigative processes that guarantee the implementation of due process of law," said Yaqut's lawyer team.
Previously it was reported, Yaqut's legal team concluded that the determination of a suspect against his client did not meet 2 pieces of evidence. In which, one of the evidence that was not met was the calculation of state losses.
The conclusion of Yaqut's lawyer was based on the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016.
In the ruling, it was stated that Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law (Tipikor) must be understood as a material offense. Where the proof of the element of state financial loss as in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 must be based on the results of a special audit known as a pro-justitia investigative audit.
"This is also emphasized by the State Administrative Law Expert presented by the Respondent, namely Prof. DR Immanuel Sudjatmoko, S.H., M.S., who stated that the element of state financial loss as the basis for determining the suspect must be real (actual loss) and the amount must be certain at the time of the determination. , not just potential, and the calculation of the value of the actual loss must absolutely have been possessed by the law enforcement authorities before determining the status of a person as a suspect," said the legal team of Yaqut, in its concluding file.