Legal Experts Support Prosecutors' Appeal, Urge Judges to Understand Essence of State Economic Loss
Jakarta — Legal scholar from the Islamic University of Indonesia, Prof. Hanafi Amrani, views the Attorney General’s Office’s decision to appeal a corruption court ruling in a crude oil mismanagement case as appropriate, with the outcome depending on how the appellate court judges interpret the calculation of state economic loss claimed by prosecutors.
Although state economic loss may involve assumptions, common sense logic can accept it. “It remains for the High Court judges to determine how they interpret state economic loss,” Prof. Hanafi stated.
The Attorney General’s Office has officially filed an appeal against the verdict in the alleged corruption case involving crude oil mismanagement with nine defendants, including Muhammad Kerry Adrianto and others. One fundamental point of contention concerns the calculation of state economic loss, which prosecutors argue was not adequately addressed in the court’s decision.
Prof. Hanafi noted that the appeal was filed not only due to the rejection of the state economic loss claim but also because prosecutors disagreed with the imposed prison sentences and objected to the removal of the obligation to pay replacement compensation by the judge.
Regarding state economic loss, Prof. Hanafi explained that prosecutors demanded replacement compensation totalling Rp13.4 trillion, comprising state financial loss of Rp2.9 trillion and state economic loss of Rp10.5 trillion. “Of this claim, the judge granted Rp2.9 trillion (state financial loss), whilst the Rp10.5 trillion economic loss was rejected because the judge deemed it merely an assumption,” explained the law professor at the Islamic University of Indonesia’s Faculty of Law.
In Hanafi’s view, state economic loss can indeed be calculated if done carefully. “It depends on whether the judge can accept such calculations, given the relevant Constitutional Court decision,” Hanafi said.
The Constitutional Court previously ruled on a constitutional review of the Anti-Corruption Law regarding the word ‘can’ in the provision concerning state loss. “Previously there was the phrase ‘can cause loss’ to the state. The word ‘can’ refers to potential loss. The Constitutional Court granted this constitutional review under Decision No. 25 of 2016, which removed the word ‘can’,” he explained.
Consequently, Hanafi continued, state loss must now be ‘actual loss’. With this Constitutional Court decision, state loss in practice must be certain or actual. Meanwhile, state economic loss is considered as loss that remains abstract.
However, Prof. Hanafi believes the Constitutional Court’s decision primarily concerned state financial loss rather than state economic loss. “However, because state economic loss is mentioned alongside it, the ‘or’ conjunction was interpreted as also requiring certainty, although economic loss calculations can never be as definite as financial loss calculations,” Prof. Hanafi explained.
Prof. Hanafi emphasised the strategic importance of applying state economic loss in anti-corruption efforts. According to him, if applied, the results would be highly significant in recovering state losses.
“Consider this case (crude oil mismanagement corruption) involving Rp10 trillion — if the prosecutors’ claim were accepted by the court panel. Meanwhile, state financial loss alone amounts to only Rp2.9 trillion,” Hanafi said.
He suggested that lawmakers included state economic loss provisions specifically to ensure significant recovery of state losses. Therefore, Hanafi continued, judges must understand the essence of the state economic loss provision.
“If that is removed, it effectively ends our efforts. How can we recover state losses if we only base it on certainty (calculations based on ‘actual loss’)? Unless of course the law itself does not include the state economic loss provision,” Hanafi stated.
If anti-corruption efforts merely aim to imprison perpetrators, for Hanafi, that would be insufficient. In fact, the state would face additional burden as it still needs to allocate budget to feed them whilst in prison.