Judge Withdraws Indictment Of 13 MI Jiwasraya Because It Is Complicated, The Prosecutor Will Revise It Until He Takes The Legal Route

JAKARTA - The Public Prosecutor (JPU) at the Central Jakarta District Attorney has prepared two schemes to follow up on the decision between the panel of judges regarding the amalgamation of the indictments of 13 investment manager (MI) defendants in the alleged corruption case related to Jiwasraya.

The judge's decision as stated in the interim decision has not yet been received by the prosecutor.

"We are still waiting for a complete decision to determine our stance," said Head of the Central Jakarta District Attorney's Office, Bima Suprayoga, to reporters, Wednesday, August 18.

The first scheme that will be carried out is to improve the arrangement of the indictments or separate them. Then, the corrected charges will be transferred back to the court.

"The public prosecutor will determine his attitude, whether to repair the indictment and then transfer the indictment back," said Bima.

While the second scheme is by filing a legal action. Later, the team of prosecutors will file an objection to the DKI Jakarta High Court (PT) on the judge's decision.

"Take legal action by filing an objection in accordance with 156 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the High Court," said Bima.

On the other hand, Bima emphasized that the prosecutor had prepared the indictment according to the existing rules. Where, the preparation is the authority of the prosecutor.

"The prosecutor at the Central Jakarta District Attorney in compiling the indictment must be done carefully, clearly and completely in the provisions of Article 143 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code," said Bima.

"And it is in accordance with the authority of the public prosecutor in merging cases and making them into an indictment which is explicitly regulated in Article 141 letter c of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP)," he continued.

Previously, the panel of judges at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court considered that the preparation of the indictment was complicated and contrary to the principles of a simple, fast and low-cost trial.

"The merging conditions as stated in Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code for examination are not fulfilled so that objections or exceptions to the merger of case files submitted by defendants 1, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are considered reasonable and based on law and therefore must be accepted," said Judge Eko.

Since the objection to the merger of case files was accepted, the indictment must be declared null and void by law.

"Please, the public prosecutor has the right to fight or submit the case to be split into 13 case files," said judge Eko.