Judge Rejecting Execution Chuck Putranto Even Though He Hasisted Only To Carry Out Ferdy Sambo's Order

Illustration of the trial of obstruction of justice case of Brigadier J's death at the South Jakarta District Court (doc VOI)

JAKARTA - The panel of judges at the South Jakarta District Court decided to reject the objection or exception note filed by the defendant Chuck Putranto in the obstruction of justice case of the premeditated murder of Nopriansyah Yosua Hutabarat alias Brigadier J. Thus, the trial was continued to the stage of proof or examination of witnesses. "Rejected the exception or objection from the defendant's legal advisor in its entirety," said the judge during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday, November 10. The decision to reject the exception was because all the charges prepared by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) were in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Thus, the dakwan of the prosecutor is considered to be used as the basis for examining witnesses in the stage of proof Then, the panel of judges also denied the prosecutor to present witnesses in the next trial. This is because the obstruction of juctice case with the defendant Chuck Putranto is continued to the stage of proving the indictment. "Ordered the public prosecutor to continue examining cases," said the judge. Originally, at the previous trial, Chuck Putranto in his exception stated that he was only carrying out orders from superiors in the murder case of Brigadier J. Moreover, it was done because of pressure. "The defendant is purely a form of carrying out the orders of the superior and the defendant under pressure by his superiors," said Jhony Masmur William Manurung. Chuck Putranto was jointly charged with obstructing the investigation into the murder case of Nopriansyah Yosua Hutabarat alias Brigadier J. He is said to have conspired with Ferdy Sambo, Hendra Kurniawan, Agus Nurpatra, Baiquni Wibowo, Irfan Widyanto and Arif Rachman. Thus, Baiquni Wibowo was charged with violating Article 49 in conjunction with Article 33 subsidiary Article 48 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law Number 19 of 2016 and/or Article 233 of the Criminal Code subsidiary Article 221 paragraph (1) to 2 in conjunction with Article 55 of the Criminal Code.