Experts Highlight Supreme Court Issues in Aftermath of Acquittal in Bank Kalbar Case
The Supreme Court’s (MA) decision to reject the Public Prosecutor’s (JPU) cassation in the Bank Kalbar land acquisition case involving defendant Paulus Andy Mursalim (PAM) reflects serious issues in the logic of law enforcement and has the potential to damage the foundation of corruption eradication in Indonesia.
Criminal Law Expert from Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta, Chairul Huda, assessed that the MA’s decision warrants scrutiny, particularly in the context of consistency in evaluating state losses.
Based on the audit results from the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), there are indications of state losses amounting to Rp39.8 billion from a total procurement value of Rp99.1 billion.
“With the BPKP’s calculations, this should serve as an objective reference in deciding the case. However, in practice, the Supreme Court is often inconsistent, sometimes accepting and sometimes ignoring it,” Chairul stated in a written statement on Tuesday, 5 May 2026.
He also warned of the possibility that the construction of this case was not viewed holistically by the MA and the Kalbar High Court.
Moreover, at the Pontianak District Court, the verdict against Paulus Mursalin was 10 years in prison, a fine of Rp500 million subsidiary two months’ imprisonment, and required to pay replacement money of Rp31.47 billion.
In addition, there is potential for other criminal acts that were overlooked, particularly related to losses to the Regional Development Bank sourced from APBD capital participation.
“If viewed only as corruption, then there is a consequence that the replacement money goes to the centre, while the real loss is in the region. This shows complexity that should be considered more comprehensively by judges,” Chairul Huda emphasised.
It is known that the Judicial Commission (KY) has stated it is open to following up on reports of alleged ethical violations in this case. KY Commissioner, Anita Kadir, affirmed that they have the authority to supervise judges’ behaviour based on the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judges’ Behaviour (KEPPH).
“If there are allegations of ethical violations and reported to the KY, we will certainly follow them up according to the applicable mechanisms,” she said.
Nevertheless, the KY emphasised that it cannot enter the realm of judicial technicalities or the substance of the decision.
Anita assessed that this decision could not only impact one case but also potentially weaken public trust in corruption eradication efforts, especially in the regions.