Court Dismisses Roy Suryo's Compensation Suit Over Procedural Flaw

The South Jakarta District Court has declared the pre-trial motion filed by Roy Suryo regarding a compensation claim for an arrest, search, and detention previously ruled unlawful as inadmissible. The ruling was delivered in pre-trial hearing Number 118 on Thursday (6/8) by Judge I Ketut Darpawan.

In its decision, the court stated that the application contained a formal defect because it lacked a necessary party. The judge ruled that the Minister of Finance should have been included as a party in the case, as the minister holds the authority to make compensation payments based on a court ruling or determination.

“The pre-trial application of the Petitioner is declared inadmissible,” the judge stated while reading the verdict in the South Jakarta District Court courtroom. The court also ordered the cost of the case to be borne by the petitioner, amounting to nil.

In its considerations, the panel of judges explained that Roy Suryo’s application aimed to obtain compensation for the actions of investigators, namely the search, arrest, and detention that had previously been declared invalid through a pre-trial ruling. To support his application, Roy Suryo submitted documentary evidence and presented an expert, Dr. Didit Wijayanto Wijaya, S.H., M.H.

Meanwhile, the respondent submitted their own evidence and presented an expert, Dr. Hendri Jayadi, S.H., M.H. The respondent argued that the previous pre-trial ruling in Roy Suryo’s favour did not automatically entitle him to the full value of the compensation requested. They contended that the amount of compensation must still be proven based on actual loss, a causal relationship, and the principles of propriety, proportionality, and justice.

Before examining the merits of the case, the judge first assessed the formal aspects of the application. The judge referred to Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) because the Government Regulation concerning compensation payments, as mandated by Article 175 paragraph (5) of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code, has not yet been issued. Consequently, the judge applied the provisions of Article 11 of Government Regulation Number 27 of 1983, as last amended by Government Regulation Number 92 of 2015. This regulation stipulates that compensation payments are made by the Minister of Finance based on a court ruling or order. Based on this, the judge concluded that the Minister of Finance is the party authorised to make compensation payments and should therefore have been included in the case. The judge stated that the failure to include the Minister of Finance rendered the application formally defective due to a missing party. The pre-trial hearing was subsequently closed.