Expert: Naming Febrie a Suspect Without Prior Examination Violates the Constitution

Police have named former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah a suspect in three cases of alleged corruption and money laundering (TPPU) concerning coal procurement, PT Asabri, and PT Krakatau Steel, without ever having examined or clarified the allegations with him. Professor Suparji Ahmad, a Professor of Law at Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia, assessed that if a person is indeed named a suspect without being examined as a witness, it contradicts the constitution as stipulated by the Constitutional Court (MK). “If it is true that a person was named a suspect without ever being summoned and examined first regarding the alleged criminal act, then the suspect designation potentially contradicts Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 and the principle of due process of law adopted by the new Criminal Procedure Code,” Suparji told journalists on Saturday, 18 July 2026. Suparji stated that robust law enforcement is not solely about finding perpetrators of criminal acts, but also about ensuring every procedure is carried out in accordance with the constitution and the principles of the rule of law. He therefore argued it is improper for someone to be named a suspect without first being summoned and examined. He explained that the legal basis is not only the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) but also Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which is final and binding. “In its ruling and legal considerations, the Constitutional Court interpreted that the phrases ‘preliminary evidence’, ‘sufficient preliminary evidence’, and ‘sufficient evidence’ must be construed as at least two pieces of valid evidence accompanied by the examination of the prospective suspect before the person concerned is designated as a suspect,” he said. This means, he added, that since the pronouncement of Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, a suspect designation is no longer sufficient based merely on two pieces of evidence. Suparji explained that investigators are also obliged to provide the person to be named a suspect with the opportunity to be heard first. This serves as a form of implementing due process of law and protecting the constitutional rights of citizens. “It is true that the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognise the term ‘prospective suspect’. Therefore, in investigative practice, such an examination is generally conducted in the capacity of a witness, because at that stage the person’s legal status is not yet that of a suspect. Thus, in legal practice, examination as a witness prior to a suspect designation constitutes an implementation of Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014,” he added.