JAKARTA - The decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court (PT) which aggravated the sentence of the former General Director of PT Pertamina (Persero), Luhur Budi Djatmiko, was highlighted. The irregularities were considered to have occurred after the judge aggravated the sentence and imposed an additional penalty in the form of compensation in the amount of IDR 348.69 billion.
"The defendant must appeal. If the appeal is rejected, ask for a review (PK). The reason is that the judge is wrong and does not have the competence to try corruption cases," said former Deputy Chairman of the KPK Alexander Marwata to reporters in Jakarta, Tuesday, May 19.
Alexander said that a number of irregularities had occurred, for example, the money from the land procurement transaction was received by PT Bakrie Swasakti Utama and PT Superwish Perkasa as the seller. This condition should make the payment of compensation directed to the beneficiary of the criminal act, not by the defendant who has not been proven to have received economic benefits.
"(Why, red) imposes a substitute money to the defendant (Luhur) who does not enjoy any benefits from the alleged crime (public prosecutor)," he said.
Alexander even asked the panel of judges to read the additional criminal provisions in the Corruption Crime Law.
"Tell the panel of judges to read Article 18 Paragraph 1 letter b (Law No. 31 of 1999 as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001)," said Alex.
In this case, the prosecutor used the construction of Article 55 of the Criminal Code regarding participation. Therefore, according to Alex, the court should also clearly explain the role of private parties who receive land procurement payments.
If PT Bakrie Swasakti Utama and PT Superwish Perkasa are referred to as the parties receiving the payment, then the position of the two companies is considered important in criminal accountability and recovery of state losses.
The following highlights provided by Alexander are about the spike in sentences which are considered very significant from the first level to the appeal level.
According to him, the High Court's authority to aggravate the sentence does exist. But, it must be accompanied by strong and measurable legal considerations.
"If necessary, the panel of judges will be reported to the Supreme Court Supervisory Agency (MA) and the Judicial Commission (KY) for alleged violations of professionalism," added Alex.
He assessed that the decision to impose a substitute fine on a party who was not proven to have enjoyed the proceeds of a criminal act could obscure the direction of state loss recovery.
In the context of asset recovery, said Alex, the recovery of state losses should pursue assets or profits that have actually been received by certain parties.
"Judges who are not professional in judging deserve to be fired," said Alex.
Therefore, the Supreme Court is asked to re-examine the appeal decision through the cassation mechanism. Because this case concerns the basic principle in criminal accountability for corruption.
"If the sales proceeds are received by PT Bakrie Swasakti Utama and PT Superwish Perkasa, why is the replacement money charged to Luhur Budi Djatmiko," he concluded.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
