Hasto's Trial, Former Constitutional Court Judge Called The Proponential Article Unable To Be Implemented In Investigation

Former Constitutional Court (MK) judge Maruarar Siahaan in the follow-up trial of the defendant Hasto Kristiyanto/PHOTO: Rizky Adytia-VOI

JAKARTA - Former Constitutional Court (MK) judge Maruarar Siahaan assessed that Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (UU Tipikor) could not be implemented at the investigation stage.

He conveyed this opinion when answering a question from Maqdir Ismail, Hasto Kristiyanto's attorney in the follow-up trial of the alleged bribery case for handling changes between the DPR's 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation.

"Yes, I think if it is interpreted as what is determined here is an investigation but it is applied to investigation, it is an expansion which was said to be an extensive interpretation, which is contrary to the characteristics of criminal law as a lex stricta, lex carta, and what is written or Lex scripta. I don't think it will be allowed," said Maruarar Siahaan in a trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Thursday, June 19.

According to him, if the article on obstruction is applied at the investigation stage, there will be an extensive interpretation that is contrary to the characteristics of criminal law.

In addition, it also contradicts the principle of legality which requires certainty, clarity, and writing of legal rules. Therefore, the expansion of the meaning of investigation' into investigation' is considered inappropriate.

Maruarar also mentioned the frequent misbehavior in understanding Ragnok's legal theory, which states that the law consists of three elements, namely certainty, justice, and benefit.

"If the situation is unbearable again, then we will shift a little that certainty can be shifted to see the element of justice, but if there is no such problem, it cannot be shifted, legal certainty is the main and characteristics of the criminal law that we said earlier, which causes him not to interpret extensively is that certainty," he said.

The dynamics of the law, said Maruarar, led to two things, namely stability and change. Shiftation can be done if it creates injustice.

"Sabilicity is certainty, but if it is unbearable that certainty creates a new injustice that is shifted slightly, then there will be a legal change. But if it is not something absolute and especially if it is against human rights regulated in our constitution, it is not allowed," said Maruarar.

In this case, Hasto together with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah, former PDIP cadre Saeful Bahri, and Harun Masiku were charged with giving bribes of Rp 600 million to Wahyu Setiawan (KPU commissioner) in the 2019-2020 period.

This bribe is so that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve the application of PAW for the South Sumatra Election Candidate (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the KPK OTT incident against Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Hasto was also charged with Article 21 and Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 paragraph (1) and Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.