Witnesses Deliver Accounts on Investigation Process
Image

Johannes Rettob taking oath before testifying as the Petitioner’s witness at a material judicial review hearing of the Prosecution and KPK Laws, Tuesday (8/1/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of three laws: Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Office; Article 39 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption; as well as Article 44 paragraphs (4) and (5) on the phrase “or the Prosecution Office;” Article 50 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) on the phrase “or the Prosecution Office;” and Article 50 paragraph (4) on the phrase “and/or the Prosecution Office” of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The eighth hearing for case No. 28/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by advocate M. Jasin Jamaluddin, took place on Tuesday, August 1, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

The hearing presented Johannes Rettob as the Petitioner’s witness to reveal his legal process relating to the Anti-Corruption Law. While being investigated by the Mimika Prosecution Office, Rettob only went to one court trial. Despite not having submitted complete documents, within one month his case had proceeded to investigation. After two examinations, he was named a suspect.

“I was named a suspect at 10:00 p.m. and I signed an investigation report, then the next afternoon, several confidential witness accounts had spread on social media. While being declared a suspect, I was examined by an investigator and was asked whether I wanted to call a witness. I agreed. However, on February 27, 2023 upon waiting for my witnesses to be summoned, I received a letter to submit documents for Stage 2. I filed an objection because my witnesses had not been examined, in which I feel that my human rights as a suspect were not fulfilled by the investigator, even during that pretrial process,” Rettob said virtually.

He also recounted that he then sent a letter to the Attorney General’s Office to express complaint of the lack of legal protection. He followed the trial process and the dismissed pretrial well. During trial, the Anti-Corruption Court 1A of Jayapura finally examined an interlocutory injunction and declared the subject matter not fit for trial.

Then, the public prosecutor filed the dossier to the district court and Papua Provincial Prosecution Office sent letters to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the governor of Central Papua to dismiss Rettob from his position as acting Mimika regent.

Transfer of Case

Next, Iwan K. Niode, another witness, testified as part of Johannes Rettob’s legal team for the case in Jayapura District Court. In his testimony, he said that when Rettob was named a suspect during investigation, he was asked to review the investigation report, which mentioned the suspect’s request for witnesses and experts to argue the case. However, when the case was transferred to the district court, those witnesses and experts were not examined. Niode then sent a letter to the Papua Provincial Prosecution Office on the follow-up to the request while also facing a pretrial charge.

“However, during pretrial, the dossier was transferred to dismiss the pretrial motion that had been filed. What I know is that in a criminal case, when [the follow-up to the investigation results was declared complete], usually the suspect is handed over by the investigator to the public prosecutor. I did not see this. The dossier was immediately transferred. I believe this was an arbitrary action on the part of the investigator, given that [the suspect has] the right to request examination of witnesses and experts who can argue their case. However, what happened was transfer of dossier without any handover from the investigator to the public prosecutor, so I questioned the trial process of this corruption case, which is still ongoing in the 1A Jayapura District Court,” Niode recounted virtually.

Also read:

Advocate Challenges Prosecution’s Investigative Authority 

Advocate Revises Petition on Prosecution’s Investigative Authority

House’s View on Prosecution’s Authority to Investigate 

Govt: 1945 Constitution Does Not Prohibit Prosecution Office’s Dual Authority 

Different Functions of Police, Prosecution, KPK in Corruption Eradication 

Investigators of Police, Prosecution, KPK Synergize in Corruption Eradication

Law Enforcement Overlap over Corruption Cases 

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, the Petitioner asserted that the a quo articles were in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and that the granting of investigative authority on certain offenses to the Prosecution has led it to become a superpower. In addition to prosecution, it can also investigate.

The authority, which was granted by Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d of the Prosecution Law, has enabled the Prosecution to conduct investigation arbitrarily. In addition, since pre-prosecution over investigations carried out by prosecutors is also carried out by prosecutors, so there is no control over investigations carried out by prosecutors by other institutions. In the absence of such control, prosecutors often ignore requests for the rights of suspects, such as requests for the examination of witnesses/experts for suspects to shed light on a case.

On February 21, 2023, a prosecutor declared the Petitioner’s client’s dossier incomplete and that a follow-up investigation would be carried out. However, despite the investigating prosecutor not having carried out that investigation, on February 23, the pre-prosecution prosecutor declared the dossier complete and transferred it to the public prosecutor. During the investigation, the Petitioner’s client asked that his witnesses and experts be examined to shed light on the case. however, the investigator and pre-prosecution prosecutor ignored the request.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare all the petitioned articles in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.  

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.


Tuesday, August 01, 2023 | 16:07 WIB 160