Integrity of law enforcement determines public trust

The handling of the case linked to former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah is important to observe from a legal governance perspective. In this case, the police have named the former Jampidsus official as a suspect for alleged corruption and money laundering related to the handling of the PT Asabri case and other alleged corruption. The legal process is ongoing, including the evidentiary stage in court. However, beyond this process, the public is also observing how law enforcement officers carry out each stage professionally, transparently, and accountably. In a democratic state that upholds the rule of law, naming someone a suspect is not the end of the process. Instead, this stage is the beginning of an evidentiary mechanism that must proceed openly, respect the rights of all parties, and be accountable. Therefore, the public must firmly distinguish between suspect status and a guilty verdict. Guilt can only be determined through a court decision that has permanent legal force. This principle is the foundation to ensure that law enforcement does not shift into a trial by the public. On the other hand, the handling of cases involving high-ranking law enforcement officials or former officials has a broader dimension. Such cases serve as a mirror of whether an institution is capable of self-correction when alleged irregularities occur. From a governance perspective, the ability to carry out reforms is an indicator of an institution’s health. Conversely, efforts to cover up problems have the potential to erode public trust in the long term. The steps taken by law enforcement officers, which are considered responsive in handling cases of public concern, have also been appreciated by various quarters. These steps are seen as reflecting good coordination between institutions in dealing with cases that are in the public spotlight.