Lenience Rights Of The Prosecutor's Office Highlighted, Vulnerable To Misappropriation

ILLUSTRATION OF DOK VOI

JAKARTA - The Attorney General's Office (Agung) has again been highlighted regarding the right to leniency which is considered unclear. Because, the potential for fraud.

The Adhiyaksa Corps was also highlighted regarding the excessive authority contained in Law No. 11/2021 concerning the Prosecutor's Office regarding the right to immunity

"The liquidation is unclear, and is prone to abuse," said former Deputy Chairperson of LPSK Edwin Partogi Pasaribu at the Public Dialogue event: The Prosecutor's Law between the authority and public justice, quoted on Friday, January 24.

"In the draft amendment to the Prosecutor's Law, the limit is running away," he said.

The right of leniency has the right to lightly prosecute the perpetrators of the crime.

Edwin gave an example of the alleged abuse of leniency rights occurred in the Pinangki Sirna Malasari case, an employee of the Attorney General's Office who had gone viral because he met a fugitive in a banking case, Djoko Tjandra.

In that case, the prosecutor's office only demanded four years and a fine of Rp. 500 million. This shows a weak commitment to corrupt practices within the prosecutor's office itself.

"The position is only the Head of the Monitoring and Evaluation Subdivision. Under the Head of Bureau. It was difficult for the meeting to be encouraged, at least with the knowledge. We don't know, do we," he said.

In addition, Edwin also mentioned a number of other case examples. Some of them even show the 'no viral no justice' phenomenon.

"We've heard of the Valencia alias Nensyl case, which was processed for scolding her drunk husband. The prosecutor's office had demanded one year, but because it went viral, then his demands became free," said Edwin.

According to him, the handling of the case felt strange. Because, if in the end demands to be free, why should the perpetrator be processed to the trial stage.

"Also the case of maintaining hedgehog in Bali. Which after it went viral just got justice," he said.

Meanwhile, Gajah Mada University legal expert, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, showed a contradiction committed by the prosecutor's office in handling a criminal case.

"Basically, a prosecutor can use the law of conscience. But, if the parameters are not clear, it has the potential to be misused," he explained.

The academic, who is familiarly called Uceng, also used the Pinangki case as an example. It is said that the consideration behind the prosecutor's demands feels odd.

"How can the consideration be because she is a blab la mother and so on, still has small children, then she is prosecuted with a simple punishment. In fact, in other places (cases), the disparity (consideration) is far away," he explained.

According to him, it was this spirit and inappropriate consideration that then answered the phenomenon of why after the viral had just moved.

"Well, I imagine there must be clear parameters so that people don't guess all kinds of things. Maybe because this is the prosecutor with the prosecutor, then there are considerations that happen as if they are digging, this (Pinangki) is a mother. But, in other cases, the considerations are very different, "said Zainal.