Legal Expert Warns of the Basis of the Presumption of Innocence Regarding the Mention of the Director General of Customs and Excise in the Import Case

JAKARTA - Expert in Criminal Law at Tarumanegara University, Herry Firmansyah, emphasized that the mention of a person's name in the prosecutor's indictment cannot be immediately interpreted as proof of criminal guilt. According to him, in criminal law, truth must be tested through a formal and objective law enforcement process.

This statement was made in response to the emergence of a number of names in the indictment of the corruption crime case, including the name of the Director General of Customs and Excise Djaka Budhi Utama, who was mentioned in the construction of the case.

Herry explained that in the context of criminal law, the mention of a name in the indictment cannot be considered as evidence of the existence of material truth or the fault of a person.

"In the context of criminal law, the mention of the names of several people in the prosecutor's indictment does not then prove the material truth or the fault of a person," said Herry Firmansyah, Criminal Law Expert at Tarumanegara University.

According to Herry, the principle that must still be used in looking at criminal cases is the presumption of innocence or the principle of presumption of innocence. Therefore, the public needs to be careful in concluding someone's involvement based only on the mention of a name in a legal process.

"Even if there is mention of this, the presumption that is still used is the presumption of innocence, the principle of presumption of innocence," explained Herry.

He also assessed that the parties whose names are mentioned in the indictment have the right to provide clarification or explanation, especially if the mention is potentially related to someone's good name.

"They certainly also have the right to confirm an act that may be associated with a criminal act. Moreover, this is related to corruption, which indirectly can be related to someone's reputation," added Herry.

Herry emphasized that in criminal law, proof must be directed at material truth, not just public perception or pieces of information from the trial process. Therefore, he reminded the public to see the case professionally and proportionately.

"The truth that must be seen from the formal law enforcement process. What we see and hear from a process that mentions someone's name in the circle of criminal acts does not then ensure that the person is criminally responsible," he said.

Herry also said that this momentum could be a legal education for the public to better understand the difference between the mention of names in indictments, legal proof, and the determination of criminal liability.

Thus, the public is expected not to rush to build opinions that lead to social judgment before the legal process runs in full.