Former Chief Justice Of The Constitutional Court Hamdan Zoelva Comments On The PK Decision Of The Mardani Maming Case

Chairman of the Expert Council of the National Team for Winning Anies-Muhaimin (AmIN National Team) Hamdan Zoelva/PHOTO: Diah Ayu-VOI

JAKARTA - It was the turn of former chairman of the Constitutional Court (MK) Hamdan Zoelva to open his voice regarding the decision on the Judicial Review (PK) of the Mardani H Maming case to the Supreme Court (MA). He said Mardani H Maming's sentence was reduced from 12 years to 10 years and a fine of Rp. 500 million, a subsidiary of 4 months, was far from ideal.

If you look more closely, the first-degree decision up to the cassation clearly contains several errors in the application of the law, mistakes, and conflicts between decisions.

Hamdan Zoelva noted that there were three conflicts in the decision, including the legality of the application of the law, the provisions of Article 93 of Law no. 4/2009 concerning Minerba which was constructed in the indictment and the actual demands cannot be applied in this case.

Because the subject of the perpetrator in Article 93 is a business actor or holder of an IUP, not a Regent. In addition, based on legal facts in the KTUN trial in the form of IUP-OP Number 545/103/IUP-OP/D.PE/2010 issued by Mardani Maming, until now it is legally valid, there has been no cancellation from any court.

"Against the legitimate decision in the state administration law, the principle of het vermoeden van rechtmatigheid' (presumtio justea causa) means that every decision issued by the state administration official is considered legal, until it is proven otherwise through Administrative Efforts or State Administrative Courts," he said through an official statement received in Jakarta, Thursday, November 7.

He also noted that there was a mistake related to the offense of accepting bribes in the form of evidence of a meeting of mind between the Giver and the Recipient (Mardani H Maming) against the element of receiving a gift in Article 12 letter b of the Anti-Corruption Law. Given that bribery will not occur without the same will.

Then, there is a conflict between the Corruption Court Decision and the Commercial Court Decision. The location of the conflict of the decision is based on the Decision of the Corruption Court, Mardani H Maming was declared proven proven to have received gifts in the form of dividends and fees from PT. ATU and PT. PCN to PT. TSP and PT. PAR.

However, on the contrary, based on the Decision of the Commercial Court, it was proven that the money given by PT. PCN was solely due to a business relationship between PT. PT. PCN and PT. TSP and PT. PAR.

"Contrary to this decision should be a strong basis for overturning the Corruption Court Decision. Linking two events with a tempus and a different background is logical," he said.

He also assessed that there were indications of violations of the principle of imparity, such as that the consideration of the Panel of Judges was only based on the testimony of one witness, thus violating the principle of the testiles of the testes, legal considerations were only based on testimonium de auditu and in the court's decision on corruption in this case, a number of facts seemed to be confirmed into circumtantial evidence, even though they were not in sync with one another.

"Even though the implicit judiciary in understanding the state of law is a must. So, irregularities in this case should be seen by the Panel of Judges in clear and objective glasses without any intervention from any party - that is the essence of freedom of justice, so that justice can really be upheld as straight as possible for justice seekers," he said.