Examiner: Pertamina Itself Denies Any Pressure
Criminal law expert Chairul Huda has opined that it is illogical for PT Pertamina (Persero) to be described as pressured by one party, ultimately leading to its decision to lease a fuel oil terminal (BBM) belonging to PT Orbit Terminal Merak (OTM) in Merak.
Huda made this statement following the presentation of examination session findings conducted by the Law Faculty of Wahid Hasyim University alongside 15 legal experts from various universities in the Kuningan area, Jakarta, on Wednesday (11 March).
According to Huda, Pertamina is a large corporation that possesses systems for making business decisions, including when establishing cooperation with other parties.
“Look, this is a legal relationship amongst many institutions. Pertamina is not a natural person. Pertamina is a large company, shall we say, which has systems for agreeing to a legal relationship with another party,” said Huda.
He explained that Pertamina, as a major energy company, possesses an extensive business network not only at the national level but also with international partners. One example is cooperation in the purchase of crude oil, which demonstrates Pertamina’s scale of operations in the global market.
“So can you imagine that a large corporation like Pertamina conducts legal relationships not merely at national scale? It also operates at international scale, for instance purchasing crude oil from foreign business players,” he said.
Because of this, he opined that it makes no sense if the decision of a corporation as large as Pertamina could be influenced by pressure from one individual.
“So really, even if that existed and it had an influence, I think it is not logical. When Pertamina has decided to sign a contract, then there is no meaning to what is called pressure and so forth, even if that did exist. That is the first point,” said Huda.
He added that in business practice, pressure on a company can come from various parties, ranging from the government to other business partners.
“Secondly, perhaps Pertamina, when establishing cooperation with its private partners, experiences pressure at all times. Yes, isn’t it? Pressure from the government, pressure from, for instance, parliament. Pressure from other business partners. That is how it is,” he said.
However, according to Huda, it makes no sense if pressure from one individual is said to cause Pertamina to be forced to sign a fuel terminal lease agreement belonging to OTM in Merak.
“So what significance would there be if there truly was pressure from one individual, which then caused Pertamina willy-nilly to establish an agreement to lease this Merak BBM tank? I think that is not logical and would also not have a significant influence,” he said.
He stressed that during the course of proceedings, no evidence of pressure against Pertamina was found. This statement shows that allegations concerning intervention are inconsistent with facts revealed in court.
“Especially since in the trial facts, it is not proven at all. The party at Pertamina that was said to be pressured also stated there was none. That is how it is, yes,” he said.
Furthermore, Huda questioned why, if such pressure did exist, the party allegedly exerting the pressure was not held legally accountable if the allegation were true.
“Third, really, if that did exist, why was the person concerned not asked to take legal responsibility? Why another party? That is how it should be,” he said.
In criminal law, said Huda, the principle of individualisation of punishment applies, whereby a person can only be held accountable for their own actions.
“Naturally, in law there is what we call individualisation of punishment. A person is responsible for what they do. That is how it is, yes,” he said.
He opined that the defendants in this case are being held accountable not for their actions, but because of a certain status or relationship.
“Yes, I see these defendants being held accountable not for what they did. But perhaps because they have a certain relationship, have a certain status connected with what was then mentioned, for instance, pressure from one party,” said Huda.
According to him, this condition demonstrates an injustice in law enforcement. “People are punished because of their status, not because of their actions. Here again, injustice occurs,” he said.
Huda highlighted weaknesses in the judges’ bench, deemed incapable of placing facts proportionally within a legal framework, such that important aspects of the case were overlooked. He stressed that such an approach risks creating an exaggerated impression and oversimplifying the matter.
“And it is greatly regrettable that the judges’ bench did not capture this fact as a fact that is, how should it be, placed correctly within the law and without then glorifying it as though all these events arose from that issue. I think that is not correct,” he said.