The Coal Corruption Case, Between Double Standards and Esprit de Corps

Photo by Luthfiah VOI

JAKARTA - The corruption case of coal supplies that dragged the name of the former Deputy Attorney General for Special Criminal Affairs (Jampidsus) of the Attorney General's Office, Febrie Adriansyah, immediately caught the public's attention. Moreover, the status of the suspect attached to Febrie was carried out by the Corruption Eradication Task Force (Kortastipidkor) of the National Police, not the Attorney General's Office which has always been known to the public to have uncovered high-class corruption cases in Indonesia.

Unfortunately, in the midst of public appreciation for the National Police, who are considered to have succeeded in uncovering the coal corruption case as the cause of blackouts in various parts of the country, the case file involving Febrie was actually handed over to the Attorney General's Office. Therefore, it is natural that in the end there will be questions, whether the transfer of the case is an effort to localize so as not to drag other corrupt actors.

Although the Head of the Criminal Investigation Unit, Totok Suharyanto, argued that the transfer of this case was the result of an agreement between the National Police and the Attorney General's Office as a form of synergy in handling cases, a number of anti-corruption activists considered that the transfer of cases in the middle of the investigation had no legal basis, which triggered suspicions and doubts that the Attorney General's Office would independently handle cases that were full of interventions and political interests.

Several irregularities in handling this case were then opened, such as the designation of Febrie as a suspect who was considered fast since the police searched a number of locations, including Febrie Adriansyah's house in the Sentul area, Bogor, a cafe in Cipete, South Jakarta. From the search, the police seized evidence, including 74 kilograms of gold bars stored in a safe and cash of around Rp. 543 billion in various foreign currencies, as well as documents.

Researcher from the Center for Corruption Studies (Pukat) UGM, Zaenur Rohman, highlighted the determination of the suspect Febrie Adriansyah without the summoning or examination as a witness first. Although it is not required and regulated in the latest Criminal Procedure Code, there is a Constitutional Court decision Number 21 of 2024 which in the consideration of the decision requires a call and examination before a person is designated as a suspect.

This is aimed at giving the right to ignore and the opportunity to confirm the evidence possessed by the investigators. Armed with the MK's ruling, several suspects in the alleged corruption case filed a pretrial and were granted by the judge. Therefore, in the case that ensnared Febrie, Zaenur is worried that he will have the same fate if he applies for a pretrial. "I see, it seems that the Polri investigators are in a hurry to designate Febrie as a suspect. It could be so that Febrie does not get away, so let's set the suspect first," he continued.

Another anomaly in the handling of the Febrie case was when the National Police decided to entrust the case to the Attorney General's Office. Looking at other cases, investigators certainly want the cases they are handling to be completed on their own without the intervention of other institutions. The reason is, it affects the KPI (Key Performance Indicator). "For investigators, when he handles a case, suddenly it is entrusted to another person or institution, it is very bad. The KPI will go down," said Transparency International Indonesia (TII) researcher Agus Sarwono.

Zaenur Rohman emphasized that the transfer of cases at the investigation stage from the National Police to the Prosecutor's Office had no legal basis at all. The transfer of cases can be carried out as long as the case has been declared complete or P21 to enter the prosecution stage. "So, both in the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Prosecutor's Law, the Police Law, the Tipikor Law, there is no legal basis for the transfer of cases in the middle of the road," he said.

Outside of the procedure, he assessed that there was no mechanism for transferring the handling of cases during the investigation, except for the authority to take over which was specifically given only to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Therefore, Zaenur suspects the transfer of Febrie's case as a "win-win solution" between the police and the prosecutor's office facilitated by Commission III of the DPR.

Because until now, the involvement of the legislative body or Commission III of the DPR usually occurs when there is maladministration in handling a case. "So if I look at it, this case is full of intervention, as if for the sake of good relations between the police and the prosecutor's office, then the 'win-win solution' is that the police can be accused, but only Febrie. Then the case is handed over to the prosecutor's office. It is a 'win-win' for them, but this is a 'lose-lose' for the people and the supremacy of the law," he added.

Furthermore, Zaenur assessed that the alleged corruption case that dragged Febrie was included in the category of "organized crime" or organized crime which also involved groups or many individuals. The purpose of this kind of crime is to obtain financial or material benefits. Not only that, corruption or intimidation is often used to protect ongoing criminal activities.

Therefore, he suspected that Febrie was not the sole perpetrator or the mastermind of the crime. This suspicion is said to be a strong reason for handling the Febrie case to be handled by another institution. "The problem is, because this case is thrown to the Attorney General's Office, it will create public doubt that the case will be processed independently. Then, it is very possible that the case will be localized. Because corruption crimes of the organized crime type cannot be done alone. Will this case be dismantled? If the investigators come from the institution that should be dismantled, it is impossible... it means impossible," said Zaenur.

Agus Sarwono added that every law enforcement institution such as the National Police, Prosecutor's Office, or the military has a kind of esprit de corps or group spirit that protects each other. This tendency can become a barrier to stopping the investigation only at the operator level.

"Our concern is that Febrie is only a mere operator, while intellectual actors, whether in the private sector or political elites, are not touched at all. Like the MBG corruption case, it only stops when Dadan Hindayana, the top leader, is stuck there, he can't go any higher. While we know exactly, political actors play," he said.

According to him, if the Attorney General's Office is really professional in uncovering this case, then at least it must work with the Financial Analysis and Reporting Center (PPATK) to trace all the assets of the perpetrators, including where they came from and where they flowed. "Not only by entrusting, the Attorney General's Office must also open a space for coordination with other institutions, at least to trace assets," he continued.

Zaenur Rohman emphasized that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) actually has the authority to take over this case in order to avoid suspicions of legal complications between the National Police and the Attorney General's Office as stated in Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission.

"In Article 10 letter A, there are reasons for the takeover. One of them, for example, if this case is intervened by the executive, legislative, or other power. Or handling this case contains corruption or handling it is constrained," he explained.

Money laundering expert, Yenti Garnasih, argues that the KPK cannot "hide" behind the words of supervision in the Febrie case. "Don't wait until you are stuck, that the trial must be fast, cheap and simple, if it is expected to be stuck, then the legal principle will not achieve these three things," he said.

He revealed that in article 10 letter A there was another point that allowed the KPK to take over the case, namely the takeover of the investigation until the prosecution could be carried out by the KPK with the reason 'impediments to handling corruption crimes due to interference from holders of executive, judicial or legislative power, and other circumstances according to the consideration of the police or the prosecutor's office, the handling of corruption crimes is difficult to implement properly and can be held accountable.

"It is clearly written in the KPK Law. If it is not taken over by the KPK, Yenti is worried that there will be a conflict of interest in one legal institution that handles cases of alleged corruption by senior officials of the institution," added Yenti.

Double Standard in the Corruption Case of Law Enforcement Agencies

On the other hand, in previous cases of alleged corruption cases that dragged a number of names in law enforcement agencies, there was a pattern of double standards. Inspector General of Police Budi Gunawan on January 10, 2015 was chosen by President Joko Widodo as the sole candidate for the National Police Chief. The public protested at that time because of Budi's involvement in the fat account case of Polri officials and Megawati Sukarnoputri's influence - because Budi had been Megawati's aide when he was president.

Three days later, the KPK named Budi Gunawan as a suspect in the alleged corruption and suspicious transaction case. The Chairman of the KPK, Abraham Samad at that time said that he had found two pieces of evidence so that he decided to increase the stage of investigation to the investigation stage. The KPK said that the determination of the suspect was related to the receipt of gifts and promises made by Budi Gunawan as Head of the National Police Training Bureau 2003-2006 and other positions.

After Budi Gunawan won a pretrial lawsuit that canceled his status as a suspect, the KPK transferred the case to the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General then transferred the case to the National Police, which ultimately issued a SP3 (Indonesian: Surat Perintah Penghentian Penyidikan). The transfer of this case triggered an internal rejection from KPK employees because it was considered to have the potential to create conflicts of interest.

Meanwhile, in the case of Prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan (Head of the investigation team for the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance/BLBI funds case), this was handled by the KPK without handing over the case file to other law enforcement agencies. Initially, on March 2, 2008, the KPK arrested Urip while he was conducting a transaction on Jalan Terusan Hang Lekir, Jakarta. He was arrested along with evidence in the form of money in the amount of 660 thousand US dollars from Artalyta Suryani, which was a bribe for handling the BLBI case for Bank Dagang Nasional Indonesia.

In June 2008, Prosecutor Urip was charged with receiving a bribe of Rp6 billion from Artalyta Suryani, he was also accused of blackmailing former chairman of the National Banking Health Agency (BPPN) Glenn Yusuf. Urip was sentenced to 20 years in prison with a fine of Rp500 million, his sentence was heavier than the Public Prosecutor's demand of 15 years in prison and a fine of Rp250 million.

Seeing the case, Zaenur assessed Febrie's case if there was indeed competition between the prosecutor's office and the police, logically this case should have been handed over to the KPK. "Although in the end the prosecution will return to the prosecutor's office, or the prosecutor in the KPK, but I think, I can't get the impression that in this case there is a legal breakthrough, don't want to be done legally so find a middle ground, so compromise once," he said.

The urge for the coal corruption case not to stop at Febrie was also launched by the Professor of Law and Human Rights at the University of Indonesia (UI), Prof Heru Susetyo. The reason is that when the coal governance is controlled by corrupt practices, then what is harmed is not only the state's finances, but also the community who loses their rights to the environment, health, and access to fair development.

He reminded that the plunder in the natural resources sector was not just a common financial crime, but a serious violation of Human Rights (HAM), especially the economic, social, and cultural rights of the community. "Investigators must adhere to the principle of equality before the law. If evidence of the involvement of corporations or other public officials is found, the law must be enforced without exception," he added.

The law academic of Bina Nusantara University (Binus), Muhammad Reza Zaki also considers it impossible for corruption in the energy sector to be carried out individually. According to him, there is a network of octopus business that plays behind it. "Corruption practices in the coal sector generally involve various complex modes, ranging from licensing arrangements, procurement, commodity distribution, to abuse of authority. The investigation must be directed at uncovering the entire network, not just the field actors," he said.

Therefore, he urged that the flow of funds (follow the money) be pursued to its roots, including examining companies that are in the coal business chain. This step is considered important to answer the public's thirst for justice. "The public wants to know who benefits economically, how the money flows, and which corporations enjoy the results of criminal acts," said Reza.