Former Constitutional Court Judge Calls SOP Institution No Higher Than Law

The trial of alleged bribery for the management of the 2019-2024 DPR PAW and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation with the defendant of the PDIP Secretary General, Hasto Kristiyanto. (Rizky A-VOI)

JAKARTA - Former Constitutional Court (MK) judge Maruarar Siahaan assessed that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of an institution is placed higher than the law in terms of constituTION related to legal assistance and searches.

He conveyed this in the trial of the alleged bribery case for handling changes between the time (PAW) of the DPR for the 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation with the defendant Secretary General of PDIP, Hasto Kristiyanto.

Starting when Hasto Kristiyanto's legal brush, Ronny Talapessy questioned the position of SOP for an institution higher than the law.

"In the examination process, then in the Criminal Procedure Code, it is stated that a person has the right to be accompanied by a lawyer or search must be based on a letter of stipulation of the District Court but in an institution they have an SOP which becomes a reference for them. What is the expert's view, can this SOP beat the law from the constitutional side?" asked Ronny during a trial at the Corruption Court in Jakarta, Thursday, June 19.

"Yes, I think the hierarchy of regulations certainly can't," replied Maruarar.

If there are still doubts, Maruara said that a judicial review or judicial review could be carried out. However, furthermore regarding the handling of the process must be in accordance with the legislation. Because, it will affect the validity of the evidence from the results of the search.

"Things that are supported in the provisions of the legislation, especially in my experience, the former chairman of the court as well, sir, we also saw that there was a search and confiscation of goods from a person, say the defendant candidate, but no witness saw whether the evidence was taken from there," he said.

If the process of obtaining evidence is carried out in an illegal manner, then, it cannot be used in the judiciary.

However, if it is still used to support the argument, it can damage the validity and justice of the ongoing legal process.

"That the confiscated items without a legal basis or a valid process cannot be used, they are poisonous trees," 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