Pinangki Prosecutor's Cut In Sentencing Is An Harassment Of Our Reason, Judicial Institutions Need Supervision

Prosecutor Pinangki (Source: Antara)

JAKARTA - The decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court (PT) to cut the sentence of the prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari to six years has been publicly highlighted. The sentence handed down to Pinangki is considered harassing the judiciary. There are things that are odd, indeed, that make Pinangki's sentence cuts closer to harassment of public reason.

So, the decision of PT DKI Jakarta is a continuation of the appeal filed by Pinangki against the verdict of the panel of judges at the Corruption Court which sentenced him to ten years in prison. From ten, now Pinangki's sentence is four years for cases of accepting bribes, conspiracy, and money laundering.

"The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rp. 600 million, provided that if the fine was not paid, it was replaced with imprisonment for six months," the Supreme Court's decision page said on Monday, June 14.

The decision was taken by the chairman of the panel of judges, Muhammad Yusuf, with judges as members Haryono, Singgih Budi Prakoso, Lafat Akbar, and Renny Halida Ilham Malik. There were a number of considerations taken by the panel of judges until they cut Pinangki's sentence by more than half.

Prosecutor Pinangki (Source: Antara)

First, Pinangki is said to have pleaded guilty and regretted his actions and was sincerely dismissed from the prosecutor's profession. "Therefore, he can still be expected to behave as a good citizen," wrote the consideration. Another factor is the status of Pinangki who is the mother of a four-year-old toddler.

"... deserves to be given the opportunity to nurture and give love to his child in his growing period."

Another consideration, the judge said that as a Pinangki woman, she must receive attention, protection and the right to be treated fairly. "That the defendant's actions cannot be separated from the involvement of other parties who are also responsible, so that the level of guilt affects this decision."

"That the criminal charge of the Prosecutor / Public Prosecutor as the holder of the Dominus Litus principle who represents the state and government is considered to have reflected the community's sense of justice."

Harassment of public reason

"It's really outrageous," said Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) researcher Kurnia Ramadhana. For Kurnia, the decision to cut Pinangki's sentence made no sense. Even with all the considerations spoken by the judge.

According to Kurnia, Pinangki should have been sentenced to a more severe sentence of up to 20 years or life. There is an overturned standard in judges' judgment. Not the status of the mother, let alone the gender factor that is considered

The judge should have considered Pinangki's status as a law enforcer in this case. "However, Pinangki should have been sentenced to a more severe sentence, 20 years or life, instead of being reduced from 10 years to 4 years in prison," said Kurnia.

Regarding Pinangki's appeal decision, Kurnia said the prosecutor must immediately file an appeal. This needs to be done to open up the possibility of a heavier penalty for Pinangki. Kurnia also encouraged the Supreme Court to oversee the cassation process later.

"ICW believes that if there is no supervision, it is not impossible for Pinangki's sentence to be reduced again, and even released," said Kurnia.

Supervision system

Prosecutor Pinangki (Source: Antara)

The law enforcement supervision system is important if you look at the judicial process in the Pinangki case. The ball is now in the hands of the prosecution. But we also remember how the prosecutor used to charge Pinangki with a low sentence.

Regarding this latest appeal decision, the prosecutor of the Central Jakarta District Attorney has not yet made a decision. Head of the Central Jakarta District Attorney's Office, Riono Budi Santoso, admitted that he had not "received the PT (High Court) decision."

According to Budi, his party will study the decision first before determining the steps. "The prosecutor will study it first, especially the considerations so that we can determine the next position," said Budi.

Previously, the prosecutor from the Attorney General's Office demanded Pinangki to four years in prison plus a fine of Rp. 500 million, subsidiary to six months in prison. The panel of judges on the Corruption Court of the Central Jakarta District Court considered that the claim was too low.

The panel of judges believes Pinangki deserves a more severe punishment because of his profession as a law enforcer On February 8, the Central Jakarta District Court Corruption Court sentenced Pinangki to ten years in prison, plus a fine of Rp600 million, subsidiary to six months in prison.

Another consideration that aggravated Pinangki's sentence at that time was because it was considered that Pinangki did not support the government in administering a government free of corruption, collusion and nepotism. Pinangki is considered to often complicate the judicial process.

"The defendant convoluted, denied and covered up the involvement of other parties in the a quo case, did not admit his actions and had enjoyed the results of the crime he had committed," said Chief Justice Ignatius Eko Purwanto reading the verdict on February 8.

Pinangki prosecutor case

In this case Pinangki was proven to have committed three crimes. First, Pinangki was proven to have received a bribe of 500 thousand US dollars from the convict of the "cessie" case of Bank Bali, Djoko Tjandra.

Bribes were given so that Djoko Tjandra could return to Indonesia without being executed. At that time, Djoko Tjandra was in the midst of a two-year prison sentence based on the Judicial Review (PK) No. 12 dated June 11, 2009.

In assisting Djoko Tjandra, Pinangki participated in compiling an "action plan", asking for a MA fatwa related to Djoko Tjandra's PK decision by including the initials "BR", namely Burhanuddin as an official at the Attorney General's Office and "HA", namely Hatta Ali as an official at the MA.

The plan failed because the police first arrested Djoko Tjandra. Djoko Tjandra himself has been sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for being proven to falsify a travel document, a COVID-19 examination certificate and a health recommendation letter to enter Indonesia.

Djoko Tjandra (Source: Antara)

In the agreement, Djoko Tjandra actually had to pay 10 million US dollars. However, the money that entered Pinangki was only an advance of 500 US dollars. Pinangki's second crime was money laundering.

Pinangki is known to have laundered money with a value of US$ 375,279 or equivalent to Rp. 5,253,905,036. The money was part of a bribe given by Djoko Tjandra. There are several ways that Pinangki does in money laundering.

Some of them by buying a blue BMW X5. In addition, money laundering is also carried out for renting apartments in the United States (US), paying for beauty doctors in the US, paying for home care doctors to credit card payments.

The third criminal act, Pinangki was proven to be involved in an evil conspiracy with Andi Irfan Jaya, Anita Kolopaking, and Djoko Tjandra. The three were proven to have promised something in the form of 10 million US dollars to officials at the AGO and the Supreme Court to thwart the execution of Djoko Tjandra as stated in the "action plan".

*Read other information about CORRUPTION or read other interesting articles from Indra Hendriana and Yudhistira Mahabharata.

Other BERNAS