Former KPK Spokesperson Defends KPK's Decision on Yaqut's House Arrest Status
Legal practitioner Febri Diansyah considers the shift in detention status to be a legally valid step, provided it is not conducted transactionally.
This was stated in relation to the KPK’s action, which temporarily changed the detention of hajj quota corruption suspect Yaqut Cholil Qoumas to house arrest. As of Monday (23/3), Yaqut’s status has been returned to KPK detention centre.
This former KPK spokesperson said that the shift in detention has a legal basis under Article 108 paragraph (11) of the new Criminal Procedure Code.
He stated that such actions have been known since the old Criminal Procedure Code in 1981 and also in the new one.
“There are three types of detention, starting from detention centre, city detention, and house arrest. As long as there is no transactional element behind the detention shift, it is a legally valid action,” Febri said in a written statement on Tuesday (24/3).
Febri suspects that the shift in Yaqut’s detention caused a stir in the public because the KPK has never previously conducted a detention shift since its establishment.
He continued that this is often linked to the KPK’s firm stance in handling corruption.
“However, if the KPK now has a different legal policy, I think it is valid as long as there is sufficient explanation, it does not appear secretive, and it applies to all or is not privileged for certain individuals,” he said.
Febri explained that after the new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, there are several significant shifts in the purpose of sentencing.
He exemplified sentencing that more prominently features rehabilitative and restorative aspects. In this case, sentencing no longer follows the retributive or vengeful stream, which has long been abandoned.
“The question is, is the KPK’s action based on considerations of this shift in penal paradigm? We do not know yet because so far there has been no official explanation mentioning those considerations. We await the official explanation from the KPK,” he said.
Moreover, Febri highlighted another main issue for all law enforcers, namely caution in carrying out coercive measures, including detention.
He said that Article 100 paragraph (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the conditions for detention, such as concrete efforts to destroy evidence or flee.
According to him, detention before a court decision should be carried out very selectively and carefully.
He exemplified cases of defendants who were detained but acquitted based on court verdicts.
“Imprisonment before that decision is certainly very detrimental and causes suffering.
No one wants to be imprisoned, especially for actions not committed. This, in my view, is one form of respect for the presumption of innocence principle,” he said.