Case Broker In Supreme Court Revealed, UNDIP Legal Expert Calls For A Review Of Mardani Maming's Case

Prof. Yos Johan Utama/DOK Era.id

The decision of the judge who convicted Mardani H Maming, according to the Professor of Law at Diponegoro University (Undip) Prof. Yos Johan Utama, was a condition with an error. Based on the study, the former Chancellor of Undip criticized the sentence handed down by the judge against Mardani H Maming regarding the articles that were tightened.

Mardani H Maming was a defendant in gratification and bribery when he became Regent of Tanah Bumbu, South Kalimantan. According to Prof. Yos, this case should be investigated for judicial review (PK).

This view departs from the disclosure of the case of a legal broker carried out by the former Echelon 1 Supreme Court official, Zarof Ricar.

Case brokers such as Zarof play not only to release the defendant, but vice versa can also on the orders of certain parties direct that someone be convicted through case engineering, even though there is not enough evidence to be sentenced.

The actions of Zarof Ricar are a small case of the judicial mafia in the Indonesian republic which has been going on for a long time.

This opinion was conveyed by Prof Mahfud Md, in his statement on his YouTube account, there Mahfud said Zarof's actions during his tenure must be investigated by the Attorney General.

Having been a case broker since 2012-2022, Mahfud assessed the need for a search of cases that have been Easteastern Zarof. "This case should have been investigated, the prosecutor's office must reopen the case. If it can be tried again. So that no victim is punished because he is only a scapegoat," he said.

He considered that if there were victims of scapegoats in a number of cases indicated in this case, a review could be carried out again.

Back to Prof Yos. He stated that Mardani H. Maming's decision as Regent regarding the transfer of IUP from the administrative legal aspect was legal and was never declared null and void by the State Administrative Court (PTUN), which is an authorized court in the realm of administrative law.

Moreover, there is a decision by the Commercial Court which has been signed and stated that it is purely a business relationship and is not a secret agreement.

The Corruption Court, which is a criminal court, does not have the authority to assess the validity of the administrative decision. Therefore, there is no violation of administrative law that can be used as a criminal basis, and the defendant cannot be punished," he said in an electronic message received in Jakarta, Thursday, October 31.

He continued, the panel of criminal judges was suspected of making a mistake and was wrong because the provisions used as the basis for being accused of being the convict were Article 97 paragraph 1 of Law 4 of 2009 concerning mining, minerals and coal were wrong addresses, because the prohibition was intended only for IUP and IUPK holders.

He also emphasized that the mining permit had also gone through studies in the regions to the center. In fact, the IUP issued has obtained a clear and clean (CNC) certificate from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) for 11 years.

It is known from the facts of the trial, the IUP transition process has also received a recommendation from the head of the Tanah Bumbu Mining and Energy Service (Distamben) who stated that the process was in accordance with the applicable laws, plus the initials from the Regional Secretary, the Head of the Legal Division, and the Head of the Kadistamben.

"The juridical fact shows evidence that Mardani H. Maming as Regent and at the same time state administrative officials has the authority to issue an IUP and IUPK as regulated in article 37 paragraph 1 of Law number 4 of 2009 concerning mining, minerals and coal," he said.

Prof. Yos explained, in the case that ensnared the former Head of BPP HIPMI who at that time served as Regent was the person who gave him not the person who had the permit.

Thus Prof. Yos Johan is of the opinion that the judge's decision can be reviewed, because Mardani H Maming is known as the party who issued the permit should not be charged with a crime as regulated in the law.

Prof. Yos' opinion is also in accordance with, the results of the study or annotation of the Faculty of Law, Undip Semarang, Wednesday (30/10/2024).

The academics who participated in the study were Prof. Dr. Retno Saraswati, SH, M. Hum, who studied from the side of constitutional law, Prof. Dr. Yos Johan Utama, SH, M. Hum, who studied from the point of view of the State Administration Law and criminal.

Meanwhile, academics Prof. Dr. Yunanto, SH, M. Hum, focused their studies on civil law, and Dr. Eri Agus Priyono, SH, MSI, also conducted studies in terms of civil law.

This notation confirms that the panel of judges was allegedly wrong in assessing and constructing civil transactions involving a number of companies, such as PT Prolindo Cipta Nusantara, and PT Angsana Terminal Utama, as an act of camouflage for bribes.

"This analysis and annotation study refers to the facts of the trial and the judge's consideration in the decision against Mardani H. Maming so far," explained Prof. Dr. Retno Saraswati who is the Dean of the Faculty of Law Undip.

Retno added that the assessment team considered that the judge's decision against Mardani seemed rushed and was not based on accurate facts.

"According to the analysis of the annotation team, there is no concrete evidence that shows irregularities in the transactions carried out by these companies," said Retno Saraswati.

This study conducted by Undip's legal professor presents a new perception in the midst of the turmoil in the law in Indonesia.

The disclosure of Zarof's case, strengthens the existence of case brokers who are not only aimed at releasing, but on the contrary, it can also aim to criminalize defendants who are actually innocent as in the Mardani H Maming case, so it is appropriate for the Supreme Court Justice to correct the decision in the Review.