Minta Hakim Putuskan Penetapan Tersangka Yaqut Tidak Sah

JAKARTA - The legal team for former Minister of Religion Yaqut Cholil Qoumas concluded that the panel of judges should declare the determination of the suspect made by the KPK invalid. Yaqut's lawyer team assessed that the determination of the suspect against his client was not supported by evidence, so it did not comply with the new KUHAP procedure.

This was conveyed by Yaqut's legal team in the conclusion file submitted to the panel of judges in a trial at the South Jakarta District Court (PN), Monday, March 9.

In its conclusion, Yaqut's legal team explained in detail the things that underlie their conclusion on the determination of suspects made by the KPK. From these explanations, there are 6 core points that are concluded.

The following are the 6 core points that the legal team concluded regarding the process of designating Yaqut as a suspect:

a. (The determination of the suspect Yaqut was made) based on the procedural law and the material legal basis which has been revoked and declared not applicable;

b. without fulfilling the formal procedures as specified in Article 90 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the New Criminal Procedure Code;

c. without ever giving the Applicant the opportunity to be examined as a potential suspect;

"d. without being supported by valid and relevant evidence of state losses, against the law, and abuse of authority;

e. by the KPK leadership who is not an investigator; and

"f. by the Respondent without a valid basis of authority in the matter which questions the object which is within the realm of policy and approval of the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Based on the explanation and analysis as in the conclusion file, the Yaqut legal team also assessed that the determination of the suspect made by the KPK against his client should be declared invalid by the panel of judges.

"Thus, it is appropriate for His Honor the Pre-Trial Judge to declare that the determination of the suspect against the Applicant is invalid and has no binding legal force, along with all derivative legal actions and products," said Yaqut's legal team, quoted from the conclusion that the file was submitted to the pre-trial judge at the South Jakarta District Court, Monday, March 9.

In the file, the legal team concluded that the determination of the suspect status against Yaqut was flawed in procedure. According to Yaqut's lawyer, the determination of the suspect by the KPK also violated the new Criminal Procedure Code.

Yaqut's lawyer said the determination of a suspect against his client was flawed in procedure, because it was stated in the KPK Leadership Decision. This is not in accordance with Article 90 paragraph (1) of the new Criminal Procedure Code, which stipulates that the determination of a suspect is carried out by the investigator.

"In the trial, the state administrative law expert presented by the Respondent, namely Prof. Immanuel Sudjatmoko, S.H., M.S. actually confirmed that the authority of the government cannot be created by officials themselves, but must be obtained through legal means: attribution, delegation, or mandate," said the legal team. Yaqut.

In addition, the team of Yaqut's lawyers 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.

"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 Yaqut lawyer team.

Yaqut's lawyer team also concluded 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.