The Pinangki Case, The Failure Of The Attorney General's Era Of Bureaucratic Reform ST Burhanuddin And The Role Of King Maker

JAKARTA - Coordinator of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI), Boyamin Saiman smells the role of the 'King Maker' figure in the AGO's decision that did not appeal the light sentence of former Pinangki prosecutor Sirna Malasari. He suspected that the figure was afraid if the former Head of Sub-Section of Monitoring and Evaluation II at the Planning Bureau of the Deputy Attorney General for Development was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

"If the Attorney General's Office appeals, it is feared that Pinangki will be irritated and it is suspected that it will eventually open up. Well, I suspect that the figure of King Maker is trying to stop the Attorney General's steps from casing an appeal so that Pinangki keeps his mouth shut about all the secrets he has been holding so far," Boyamin told reporters. Friday July 16th.

Boyamin also bluntly said that the King Maker figure came from law enforcement officers or politicians.

"Who is that person? Yes, I said from the start, this person could be a law enforcement officer, or a politician. But actually I have submitted the details to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). development," he said.

According to him, if the case is resolved, his party will file a pretrial lawsuit against the KPK. It was done to trace and trace the whereabouts and role of the King Maker.

"Well, later if the King Maker can be tracked by the KPK, it is believed that it will make it clear who is the real person who has a fatwa project or a review related to his intention to release Djoko Tjandra," he said.

With this condition, he also hopes that there will be a university that can conduct an examination of the case that ensnared Pinangki. Because, according to him, it is impossible for the Attorney General's Office to conduct an internal examination.

"Regarding the steps taken by the Attorney General's Office, which cannot be appealed, an examination can indeed be carried out, but the facts show that it is the leadership of the Attorney General's Office who does not want to appeal, so an internal examination cannot be carried out. Only external examinations can be carried out, for example from campuses or universities. We I hope that universities will immediately conduct an examination study for the steps of the Attorney General's Office which did not appeal to Pinangki's decision," said Boyamin.

Attorney General ST Burhanuddin's passive attitude regarding Pinangki's light sentence has also been reported to President Joko Widodo (Jokowi). This step was taken because he was surprised by the attitude of the Attorney General who seemed to be silent.

"But at least I've reported the Attorney General to the president to order an cassation and it was published by the media. But it seems that the Attorney General has not heeded it and until now it's clearly still not an appeal," he said.

According to him, the prosecutor's office may not appeal because it feels that the High Court's decision is in accordance with the prosecutor's demands, but the community has actually pushed for an appeal so that law enforcement in Indonesia is clear and fair.

"So the Attorney General must explain why he can't fulfill the public's demand for an appeal, not just stay silent for no reason like the wind," said Boyamin.

He said that the public had even raised a petition for an appeal against the former Pinangki prosecutor's light sentence.

"The reason is very strong, because the community encourages and urges to make petitions of all kinds, right, the Attorney General should hear and file an cassation but in fact it doesn't, wallahu a'lam," he said.

Meanwhile, Trisakti University Law Expert, Abdul Fickar, said there was one reason why the Public Prosecutor did not file Pinangki's cassation, namely because of his fellow prosecutors.

"Regarding the reluctance of the Public Prosecutor to file an cassation, it could be based on the feelings of one corps or esprit de corps, but it is also very possible because the decision is considered to be in accordance with the demands," he said.

Fickar said that the Pinangki case was proof that the inherent supervision (waskat) and bureaucratic reform in the Attorney General's Office had failed and were not working properly.

"Waskat is almost never effective, it's impossible for oranges to eat oranges," he said.

For that, he continued, what needs to be stimulated and fostered in this condition of the prosecutor's office is the public's courage to report if they become victims or see extortion carried out by unscrupulous prosecutors.

He also considered that the Attorney General's Office is currently not serious in carrying out internal supervision. Especially for prosecutors who handle cases with the potential for transactions to occur.

"Both regarding the articles of indictment/demand as well as regarding the coercive efforts carried out by the prosecutor. Such as the detention and confiscation of goods suspected of being the proceeds of crime, currently have the potential to be transactional," said Fickar.

He hopes that the role of community control, especially the press, will be very important. So it also takes the courage of the national media to present news of abuses that occur in law enforcement officers.

However, according to him, nowadays people are apathetic and are still busy with their respective needs. "As long as there is no case against him, the prosecutor's office becomes irrelevant in his daily life," he said.