TPUA Protests Jokowi's Special Diploma Case Results: Inconsistent with Criminal Procedure Code and Police Regulations!

The 7th President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo (Jokowi), arrived at the Surakarta Police Headquarters in Solo, Central Java, Wednesday (July 23, 2025). ANTARA/Aris Wasita

JAKARTA - The Clerics and Activists Defense Team (TPUA) stated that the Wassidik Bureau's decision to terminate the investigation into the complaint alleging a fake diploma filed by the 7th President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo (Jokowi), does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the National Police Chief Regulation (Perkap).

The National Police Wassidik Bureau issued a Notification of the Progress of the Dumas Handling (SP3D) Number: 14657/VII/RES.7.5/2025/BARESKRIM. The letter states that the investigation conducted by the Directorate of General Crimes (Dittipidum) is terminated in accordance with applicable regulations.

"The termination of the investigation on May 22, 2025, justified in the SP3D dated July 25, 2025, based on the reason 'It is in accordance with applicable legal provisions' is incorrect, as it does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or the National Police Chief Regulation," said TPUA Deputy Chairperson Rizal Fadillah to VOI on Thursday, July 31.

According to him, several factors contributed to the special case hearing process not complying with regulations. Rizal cited one of them as the failure to conduct a forensic examination of the original diploma.

"The incomplete list of participants in the hearing, where the reporter and the accused were not invited, the incomplete investigation, the inaccurate disclosure of data, the failure to show documents or Jokowi's diploma, and the failure to analyze the forensic examination of Jokowi's thesis and diploma are evidence that the termination of the investigation did not comply with applicable regulations," he explained.

Furthermore, Rizal also highlighted the contents of the SP3D, which stated that the facts presented by the public prosecutor or reporter were only secondary data and lacked evidentiary force, therefore, they could not be used as evidence.

According to him, this also contradicts the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), as the regulation does not recognize the terms primary data or secondary data in the presentation of evidence.

"A distinction must be made between evidence and instrumental evidence. Instrumental evidence is in the form of objects, while instrumental evidence is clearly regulated in the KUHAP," he said.

"Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that evidence includes witness testimony, expert testimony, letters, clues, and the defendant's testimony," Rizal continued.

Therefore, Rizal stated that all evidence presented during the special case review process met the requirements of evidence. With the exception of Jokowi's diploma, which was never presented.

Furthermore, the Directorate of General Crimes and Crimes Investigations investigators were unable to refute the facts and data presented by the Public Prosecutor's Office (TPUA) during the special case review process. "Investigators or the Wassidik Bureau should not have stopped the investigation because it remains open to further evidence provided by the complainant or the TPUA," Rizal said.