Public Prosecutor's Response To The Sambo Ferdy Session: Legal Advisors Do Not Understand The Intent Of Article 143 Paragraph 2 Of The Criminal Procedure Code

The defendant Ferdy Sambo underwent a follow-up hearing on the death of Brigadier Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat at the South Jakarta District Court, October 20, 2022. (YouTube Screenshot)

JAKARTA - The difference in perceptions and arguments between the public prosecutor and the defendant's legal adviser is a matter of mafhum in a trial. This is a manifestation of each other's responsibility in exploring and finding truth and justice.

The legal adviser to the defendant Ferdy Sambo (FS) has presented an exception or an objection note to the contents of the indictment from the public prosecutor in the inaugural trial of the alleged premeditated murder of Brigadier Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat (Yosua) on October 17, 2022.

Now, the trial continues with the agenda of the public prosecutor's response to the exception of the defendant FS.

Regarding the exception of the defendant FS regarding the chronology of events that did not elaborate on events in full, among others, the indictment did not elaborate on the series of events that occurred at Magelang's house, there was even a description of the indictment that only relied on one witness' testimony without considering other witness statements.

The public prosecutor said it was the subject matter of the case and was not included in the scope of the exception as stated in Article 156 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The exception may only be submitted against matters that are processual exceptions and are not allowed to touch the main material of the case that will be examined at the court court concerned.

The exception of the procession is an attempt to prevent the lawsuit from being accepted. Unaccepted statements mean an in limine litis rejection, based on reasons outside the subject matter of the case.

In other words, the exception is only aimed at the formal aspects related to prosecution or examination of cases by the court. Meanwhile, the material aspects of the case are not within the scope of exception. So that the public prosecutor does not need to respond.

"However, they will still reveal the legal facts at the time of proof at the trial," said the Public Prosecutor's Team at Ferdy Sambo's follow-up trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday (20/10).

Then, regarding the reasons for the exception of the defendant FS regarding the indictment, it was prepared with care and carelessness. Extract from the results of the investigation and do not meet the material requirements and only based on his own assumptions.

The public prosecutor referred to Article 143 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code put forward by the defendant's legal counsel. The provisions in this article state that the public prosecutor made an indictment which was given a date and signed and contained a careful, clear and complete description of the criminal act charged with mentioning the time and place of the crime.

The indictment on behalf of the defendant FS has been systematically, clearly and firmly ordered. At the end of the indictment dated October 5, 2022 and signed by the public prosecutor on behalf of Rudi Hirmawan.

"At the beginning of the indictment, the time of the incident was on Friday, July 8, 2022 at 14:46-18.00 WIB or at least at other times in July 2022, or at least in 2022," said the Public Prosecutor's Team.

"The scene of the case is also clearly stated," said the Public Prosecutor's Team.

Harun M Husein in his book 'The Indictment of the Engineering for the Preparation of Functions and Problems' describes what is meant clearly as stated in Article 143 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely, the public prosecutor must be able to formulate the elements of offenses that are charged as well as combine with the description of material acts or facts committed by the defendant in the indictment.

Further explanations are also contained in the book "The Association of Stalls and Technical Guidelines for the Settlement of General Crime Cases of the Indonesian Attorney General's Office" page 68. Putting the meaning of the description carefully, clearly, and completely, namely:

A careful description means demanding the accuracy of the public prosecutor in preparing the indictment to be applied to the defendant. By placing the most careful words in the front of the formulation of Article 143 paragraph 2B of the Criminal Procedure Code, the lawmaker wants the public prosecutor to always be correct and thorough.

The description clearly means a clear description of the incident or the facts of the incident in the indictment so that the defendant easily understands what was charged and can prepare for the defense as well as possible.

A complete description means that the indictment contains all elements or elements of the criminal act charged. These elements are written in the facts of the incident as outlined in the indictment.

"We consider FS legal advisers not to understand the meaning of Article 143 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code," said the Public Prosecutor's Team.