A Series Of Prosecutors' Defenses Regarding Judge Removing Indictment 13 MI Jiwasrya

JAKARTA - The panel of judges at the Corruption Court (Tipiko) at the Central Jakarta District Court ruled that the indictment of 13 Jiwasraya Investment Managers (MI) was null and void. This is because the compilation of the combined indictment files is considered to be complicated and contrary to the principles of simplicity, speed and low cost.

Responding to the decision of the panel of judges as stated in the interim decision, the prosecutor at the Central Jakarta District Attorney has also prepared follow-up steps.

The head of the Central Jakarta District Attorney's Office, Bima Suprayoga, said that his party had prepared two schemes to respond to the judge's decision.

The first scheme that will be carried out is to improve the preparation 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.

Time 7 Days

In determining the attitude or steps to be taken, the prosecutor team has 7 days. The time will be calculated after the copy of the interlocutory decision is received.

"After receiving a copy of the full verdict, we will have 7 days to make a decision," said Bima.

The time allotted, continued Bima, was in accordance with Article 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Where, in that article it states 'The Public Prosecutor can submit a challenge to the decision within 7 (seven) days at the latest and within 7 (seven) days the District Court is obliged to send the challenge to the High Court'.

Later, after the copy of the interlocutory decision is received, the team of prosecutors will first study it carefully. Then, determine the attitude to file an objection or something else.

"Of course, after we received it, we studied it. But until now we have not received a complete interlocutory," said Bima

Apart from the two schemes and the timing of the decision of the panel of judges, 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.

In addition, the Kapuspenkum of the Attorney General's Office, Leonard Eben Ezer Simanjuntak, emphasized that the preparation of the indictment had been carried out in a professional manner. Accuracy and according to facts are prioritized.

"I want to explain that the professionalism or accuracy of the prosecutor or the thoroughness of the prosecutor in making this indictment has been really professional and can be accounted for by the public prosecutor," Leonard said.

In addition, Leonar again emphasized that the decision to merge in the preparation of the indictment was also in accordance with Article 141 letter c of the Criminal Procedure Code. Where, the public prosecutor assessed that the defendants were interrelated in the Jiwasraya corruption case.

"Several cases presented by 13 investment managers, if we look closely, are interrelated with cases that are currently being investigated related to the corruption crime that occurred at PT Jiwasraya Persero," Leonard said.

"And expressly the instructions from the head of the Supreme Court regarding Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) are the authority of the prosecutor or public prosecutor," he continued.

Returning to Bima, he emphasized that the legal status of the 13 investment managers in the Jiwasraya corruption case were still defendants. Although, the panel of judges withdrew the indictment of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) or null and void.

"The status of these 13 investment managers is still a defendant," Bima told reporters, Wednesday, August 18.

Their status is still as defendants because in the decision of the panel of judges they only question the technical preparation of case files. Therefore, the subject matter of the case does not have any problems.

"Because the interlocutory decision also stated that it was only related to the problem of merging case files," said Bima.