Behind the DPR Secretary General's Escape from KPK Suspect Status

The Secretary General (Sekjen) of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), Indra Iskandar, has won his pre-trial challenge against the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). His suspect status in the corruption case concerning the procurement of facilities for DPR members’ official residences in the 2020 fiscal year has been nullified.

The pre-trial hearing for Indra Iskandar’s lawsuit was held at the Jakarta Selatan District Court on Tuesday (14/4/2026). The judge granted Indra’s petition and revoked the suspect status previously imposed by the KPK.

“Ruling: First, the pre-trial applicant’s petition is granted in part,” stated the sole judge, Sulistiyanto Rokhmad Budiarto, while reading the pre-trial decision at the Jakarta Selatan District Court, Pasar Minggu, South Jakarta.

The judge declared that the KPK had acted arbitrarily in designating Indra as a suspect. The judge stated that the suspect designation lacked binding legal force.

“Ruling that the respondent’s act of designating the pre-trial applicant as a suspect based on Investigation Order letter number Sprin.Dik/13/DIK.00/01/01/2024 dated 19 January 2024 and Investigation Commencement Notification letter number B/41/DIK.00/23/01/2024 dated 22 January 2024 constitutes an arbitrary act,” the judge said.

In this case, the KPK had designated Indra as a suspect in his capacity as DPR Secretary General. However, Indra has not been detained by the KPK. Indra was named a suspect along with six other individuals.

Judge Orders KPK to Halt Investigation into Indra Iskandar in DPR Official Residence Case

The sole judge at the Jakarta Selatan District Court ordered the KPK to return the passport of DPR RI Secretary General Indra Iskandar. The judge also ordered the KPK to stop the investigation against Indra in the DPR members’ official residence case.

“Ordering the cessation of all travel restriction measures abroad by the respondent as per the travel restriction notification letter number B/67/DIK.00.01/23/01/2024 dated 26 January 2024, Subject: Notification of Travel Restriction Abroad for Indra Iskandar, and the withdrawal of the applicant’s passport by the Directorate General of Immigration of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights,” stated the sole judge Sulistiyanto Rokhmad Budiarto while reading the pre-trial decision at the Jakarta Selatan District Court, Pasar Minggu, South Jakarta.

“As per the Temporary Passport Withdrawal Letter number IMI.5GR.03.04-055 dated 25 January 2024, Temporary Withdrawal of Passport in the name of Indra Iskandar, conducted based on the Investigation Commencement Notification letter, and ordering the respondent to restore all such matters to their original state before the applicant’s designation as a suspect, immediately after the decision is read,” the judge added.

The judge also ordered the KPK to halt the investigation against Indra in the alleged corruption case of procuring facilities for DPR RI members’ official residences in the 2020 fiscal year. The judge stated that the KPK acted arbitrarily in designating Indra as a suspect in that case.

“Ordering the respondent to halt the investigation based on Investigation Order letter number Sprin.Dik/13/DIK.00/01/01/2024 dated 19 January 2024 and Investigation Commencement Notification letter number B/41/DIK.00/23/01/2024 dated 22 January 2024, which designated the applicant Indra Iskandar as a suspect in the matter of procuring facilities for DPR RI members’ official residences in the 2020 fiscal year,” the judge said.

Judge States KPK Only Gathered Evidence After Indra Iskandar Was Named Suspect

The judge stated that the KPK’s designation of Indra as a suspect did not meet the minimum of two valid pieces of evidence.

“The pre-trial judge opines that the respondent’s designation of the suspect is not based on sufficient preliminary evidence, namely two pieces of evidence,” stated the sole judge Sulistiyanto Rokhmad Budiarto while reading the pre-trial decision at the Jakarta Selatan District Court, Jalan Pasar Minggu, South Jakarta.

The judge opined that the KPK gathered evidence after Indra was designated as a suspect in the alleged corruption case of procuring facilities for DPR RI members’ official residences in the 2020 fiscal year. The judge stated that Indra’s suspect status in that matter is invalid.

“Considering evidence T-37 to T-54, T-56 to T-76, it can be seen that the respondent gathered evidence after the date the applicant was designated as a suspect,” the judge said.

The judge also opined that Indra had not been examined as a potential suspect in that matter. The judge stated that this contradicts Article 1 number 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

“Considering the above considerations, the pre-trial judge opines that the respondent sought and gathered evidence after the applicant was designated as a suspect; therefore, the suspect designation for the applicant is not based on valid evidence and examination of the potential suspect, which certainly contradicts Article 1 number 2 of the KUHAP and the KPK Law number 21 of 2014,” the judge said.

KPK Response

The KPK denied gathering evidence after designating DPR Secretary General Indra Iskandar as a suspect in the alleged corruption case of procuring facilities for DPR members’ official residences in the 2020 fiscal year. The KPK stated that it had already found two valid pieces of evidence during the investigation phase.

“When we conducted the investigation, we had already found those two pieces of evidence, so in accordance with the legal provisions, the KPK investigator reported it in the form of an LKTPK (Corruption Crime Incident Report). That was reported to the leadership, okay, it is deemed worthy to proceed to investigation,” said Acting Head of Litigation of the KPK Legal Bureau, Natalia Kristianto, after the pre-trial hearing at the Jakarta Selatan District Court, Pasar Minggu, South Jakarta, on Tuesday (14/4/2026).

“Meaning that in the investigation of that case, we actually already had two pieces of evidence that we found during the investigation,” she added.

She said the judge did not consider the context of lex specialis in Article 44 of the KPK Law and equated the KPK with other law enforcement agencies (APH). She said the KPK has special investigation procedures.

“So we should not then be equated with other