Between the Prosecutor's Office, Evidence and the War of Narration

Photo by Luthfiah VOI

JAKARTA - The determination of the status of a suspect accompanied by the detention of former Jampidsus Febrie Adriansyah by the 9th Attorney General's Team on July 24 is a big gamble for the Attorney General's Office to prove that the legal process is based on strong and accountable evidence.

How not, previously Febrie led the handling of major corruption cases. However, now he is a suspect in alleged criminal acts including money laundering (TPPU) related to the discovery of 74 kilograms of gold bars and hundreds of billions of rupiah in cash at a house in Sentul, Bogor.

Febrie himself believes that the process of determining suspects to detention took place too quickly. He questioned the adequacy of evidence and said that in the practice of handling previous cases, the deepening and exposure of cases were usually repeated several times before someone was named a suspect. He then delivered the sentence that became the public's concern, "I feel this is criminalization."

According to Febrie, the evidence used still needs to be confirmed and deepened. However, he stated that he still respected the decision of the leadership and was ready to face the legal process. Meanwhile, his lawyer, Febri Diansyah, asked the Attorney General's Office to explain in detail the basis for determining the suspects, including the alleged criminal acts that were suspected, not just listing the articles imposed.

In addition, the legal team also demanded that investigators first prove the ownership of evidence in the form of gold and money before tracing its origin. They also asked for the legal process to be carried out transparently, professionally, and not to be rushed, considering that the investigation has only been going on for about two days since the establishment of the suspect.

On the other hand, the lawyers emphasized the importance of fulfilling the rights of the suspects as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code, including the right to know clearly the suspicion imposed. They also urged that all law enforcement processes be based on strong and accountable evidence, not merely allegations.

In the perspective of political communication, Febrie's statement can be read as an attempt to build a framing or framing of the matter he is facing. Erving Goffman's framing theory explains that each actor tries to give a certain meaning to an event. In this case, Febrie not only talks about his legal status, but tries to shift the public focus from just "suspected criminal acts" to "whether the legal process is fair and proportionate".

By using the term "criminalization", the message being built is that he feels that he is not just facing a regular legal process, but facing an action that he believes does not conform to the principles of justice.

This is what makes the Deputy Secretary General of the Democratic Party, Didik Mukrianto, say that ideally the Attorney General's Office can answer this demand with evidence, and not just authority. First, prove convincingly that the determination of suspects and the detention of Febrie meet the formal and material requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. Second, refute the claim of criminalization made by Febrie by showing that this process is not institutional engineering or revenge, but the result of an objective investigation.

"In the Indonesian criminal justice system, investigators are authorized to establish suspects and carry out detention if there are two sufficient evidence and objective reasons. However, Febrie's demand reminded that this authority must be balanced with accountability," said Didik.

In a legal state, the accusation of criminalization must indeed be tested through the principle of due process of law. This means that the measure is not only the final result, but whether the entire process is carried out according to procedures, based on valid evidence, and provides a defense for the party being examined.

On the other hand, law enforcement officers have the obligation to prove that the determination of a suspect is not an arbitrary act, but based on sufficient evidence. Therefore, the Febrie case will be a battle between two narratives, first, Febrie's narrative that the legal process is too fast and has not gone through adequate deepening. Second, the investigator's narrative that the legal action taken has a legal basis and legal authority.

"This is where the burden of the Prosecutor's Office is felt more strongly. This institution must prove that the process is transparent within the limits permitted by the procedural law without revealing the strategy of proof while still respecting the right of the suspect to know the suspicion clearly," said Didik.

In the perspective of criminal procedure law, every suspect has the right to know clearly the charges addressed to him. Therefore, the law enforcement process is required to be based on strong and legally testable evidence, not just allegations or assumptions.

In this context, the criminalization allegations conveyed by Febrie Adriansyah will ultimately be tested through the ability of investigators to prove all the construction of the case based on facts and valid evidence, including if it is later tested through the pre-trial mechanism.

More than just proving the case, handling this case is also a test for the credibility and integrity of the Attorney General's Office. As an institution that has been at the forefront of eradicating corruption, the Attorney General is required to apply high standards of professionalism, including when dealing with figures from its own internal environment.

Therefore, clarity regarding the alleged criminal acts, proof of the involvement of the suspects with evidence, transparency of the investigation process, and respect for the rights of the suspects as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code are important aspects that need to be maintained. These steps are considered to strengthen the legitimacy of the legal process while answering various doubts and accusations that arise in the public space.

"If the Prosecutor's Office succeeds in answering all of these points with solid evidence and an accountable process, then the label of suspect and detention of Febrie will stand firm before the law and the public," said Didik.

"On the other hand, if clarity and caution are ignored, the claim of criminalization can actually strengthen. In the end, justice is not only about establishing suspects, but about ensuring that every step of law enforcement can be legally and morally accountable," he continued.

Political Intervention and Demands for Transparency and Accountability

Meanwhile, Criminal Law Expert, Romli Atmasasmita assessed that Febrie's case had a large symbolic weight because Febrie was not an ordinary official. He once led the strategic field in eradicating corruption in the Attorney General's Office. According to the theory of institutional legitimacy, public trust in legal institutions is greatly influenced by perceptions of justice and consistency. When a former high-ranking legal official becomes a suspect, the public not only sees personal matters, but also tests the credibility of the institution that once sheltered him.

Therefore, every detail will be in the spotlight, ranging from the examination process, detention, use of prisoner vests, to the legal defense strategy. "That is why handling the case that dragged Febrie must be free from political intervention," he added.

Romli also assessed that this legal process is indeed not free from the shadow of the influence of power outside the judicial system. He indicated that there were allegations of political interference from a number of parties that could undermine the independence and objectivity of the investigation.

To prevent the decline of the dignity of law enforcement in the eyes of the public, Romli emphasized that transparency and accountability at every stage of the examination are absolute conditions and cannot be negotiated. He reminded that the handling of this case should not be allowed to hang or just become a stage of drama without clear legal certainty.

According to him, fair law enforcement must be proven through objective prosecution and evidence-based prosecution at trial. Amid concerns over potential political pressure, Romli placed great hope on the existence of Team 9, a special team filled with nine prosecutors of choice of former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigators.

The composition of this team is considered very strategic because its members have a track record and direct experience in unraveling complex structured corruption cases, and are well aware of the high standards of proof required in court.

"If Team 9 can work professionally, independently, and without intervention, there is a real hope that this case can be resolved to the prosecution stage. The charges filed should not be a minor charge, but a heavy charge that is commensurate," he said.

Political observer Samuel F. Silaen, argues that when a former high-ranking law enforcement official has to face legal proceedings related to the institution he once led, the public no longer merely highlights one case. Behind the case, a much more fundamental question arises: to what extent is the national legal system able to maintain integrity and objectivity when alleged violations touch the circle of the law enforcement elite itself.

Therefore, the case of Febrie Adriansyah is considered to be one of the biggest tests for the credibility of law enforcement in Indonesia, considering that this case reflects structural problems that have eroded public trust in law enforcement institutions for years.

Samuel said Indonesia is entering a worrying phase in its law enforcement journey. According to him, the main issue is not just who is being investigated or who is being named a suspect, but how the legal system is still able to work independently when the case touches the elite of law enforcement officials. "When the last bastion of justice is shaken, then what is threatened is not only institutions, but also the people's trust in the rule of law," he said.

He assessed that the condition was an accumulation of various problems that had been left without serious improvement, resulting in a weakening of the authority of the law. Samuel emphasized that national legal reform cannot be done in part. According to him, cleaning one institution without improving the entire system will only produce a temporary solution.

Therefore, he encouraged comprehensive reforms involving the entire chain of law enforcement, from investigators, prosecutors, to the judicial institutions, so that a more effective and accountable oversight mechanism is created. Because, the current law enforcement condition is a problem that is developing in a Structured, Systematic, and Massive (TSM) manner due to weak supervision over the years.

Samuel again emphasized that the success of eradicating corruption is not only measured by the number of suspects who are determined, but from the ability of the state to build a legal system that is clean, transparent, professional, and trusted by the public.

According to him, the public wants certainty that the law is enforced without distinguishing the position, power, or background of a person. "The rule of law should not only be strong when dealing with small people, but must remain strong when dealing with those who have high positions," he said.