Pretrial Rejected, Unud Chancellor Prof Gde Antara Remains A Suspect In SPI Fund Corruption

PHOTOS BETWEEN/Rolandus Nampu

DENPASAR - Denpasar District Court (PN) Judge, Bali, stated that he rejected the request for a pretrial lawsuit by the Chancellor of Udayana University (Unud) Prof. Dr. Nyoman Gde Antara regarding the alleged corruption case of institutional development donations (SPI) for admission of new students for self-selection.

"To completely reject the exception of the respondent. In the main case, rejecting the applicant's application completely and punishing the applicant to pay the court fee," said Judge Agus Akhyudi, while reading the verdict at the Denpasar District Court, Bali, Tuesday, May 2.

In addition, the judge also ordered the Bali High Prosecutor's Office to continue the investigation process against the suspect in the alleged corruption case of the institution's development donation funds.

Separately, Denpasar District Court Public Relations official Gede Putra Astawa explained that the essence of the judge's consideration in the trial's decision included several things, namely in the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 in addition to containing the expansion of pretrial objects, as well as providing an explanation of the understanding of preliminary evidence, sufficient preliminary evidence and sufficient evidence, namely at least two pieces of evidence as contained in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Astawa said the pretrial examination of the petition regarding the illegality of the determination of the suspect only assessed the formal aspect, namely whether there were at least two valid pieces of evidence and did not enter the material case.

"From the decision of the Constitutional Court and the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016 concerning the prohibition of reviewing pretrial decisions, it can be concluded that what is required in determining the suspect is only to assess the formal aspect, the existence of valid evidence at least two and not to enter case material," said Astawa.

Based on the facts at the trial, the judge assessed that there had been evidence in the form of witnesses, experts and letters in determining the applicant as a suspect in the case of alleged misuse of institutional development donations (SPI) for new student independent pathway selection at Udayana University for the 2018/2019 academic year until 2022/2023.

This is as referred to in Article 2 paragraph (1), Article 3, Article 12 letter e Jo. Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption which has been amended by Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law no. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, Jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code.

"All the evidence was used by the respondent as evidence to determine the applicant as a suspect, thus there have been three pieces of evidence used by the respondent to determine the applicant as a suspect," said Astawa.

Based on the overall consideration above, the Denpasar District Court Judge concluded that the appointment of the applicant Prof. Dr. I Nyoman Gde Antara as a suspect was based on three pieces of evidence.

Therefore, the determination of Prof. Antara has met the requirements as referred to in the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 Jo. Article 2 paragraph (2) of Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016 concerning the Prohibition of Review of Pretrial Decisions.