Legal Practitioner Says Handling of Former West Java DPRD Chief's Case Potentially Breaches Principles of Justice

The case ensnaring Irfan Soeryanagara is increasingly attracting the attention of legal practitioners. A series of irregularities emerging in the handling of the case are considered not only to raise significant questions but also to potentially undermine the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The former Speaker of the West Java Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) for the 2009-2014 period was again taken into custody by the National Police’s Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim) on Tuesday (9/6), despite having just been released after serving a 3-year prison sentence for a previous embezzlement case based on Judicial Review Decision No. 97/2024. The senior Democrat Party politician was again detained on suspicion of embezzling 13 land certificates and for money laundering offences. Legal practitioner Ali Suage firmly assessed that there are strong indications pointing towards an error in law, abuse of power, and the criminalisation of a dispute more appropriately settled through civil law mechanisms. According to Ali, if the facts presented by Irfan’s legal advisory team are true, the matter is no longer simply an issue of evidentiary proof in court but touches on more fundamental aspects, namely legal certainty, the protection of human rights, and the professionalism of law enforcement officials. ‘This case needs to be examined seriously. Criminal law must not be used to force the resolution of a dispute whose substance remains within the civil domain. If that happens, what emerges is no longer law enforcement but criminalisation,’ Ali stressed. The first scrutiny was directed at the alleged violation of the ne bis in idem principle, a legal principle prohibiting a person from being tried twice for the same matter following a legally binding verdict. Ali explained that, based on circulating information, the object of the case involving 13 land certificates, the parties involved, and the stated loss value are said to be identical to the previous case that has become inkracht. ‘If it is true that the object, legal subjects, and legal events are the same, the simple question is: why is a case that has been legally concluded being reprocessed under an almost similar construction? This is where the ne bis in idem principle becomes relevant to be tested,’ he said. Furthermore, he assessed that the issue of the legality of the evidence also holds unanswered questions. In criminal procedure law, seizure is an important requirement for an item to be used as valid evidence in court. However, if it is true that the certificates were never seized by investigators according to the procedures set by the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), this potentially creates a serious problem regarding the validity of the proof. ‘How can an item be made the object of a criminal case while its seizure status itself is being questioned? This is not merely a technical issue but concerns the legality of the legal process itself,’ he stated. What drew more attention, Ali continued, was the construction of the alleged embezzlement offence used in the case. In criminal law, the main element of embezzlement is the possession of another person’s property with the intention of unlawfully owning it. Meanwhile, based on the information developing, the certificates in question are still registered under the names of Irfan Soeryanagara and his wife. ‘Here arises a very fundamental legal question. How can a person be suspected of embezzling a property that is administratively and juridically still recorded under his own name? The element of belonging to another person must be proven first before discussing embezzlement,’ Ali said. He added that if there is no proof of an unlawful transfer of rights, the main element of the criminal offence potentially remains unfulfilled. Not stopping there, Ali also highlighted the re-emergence of the money laundering issue in a case that, according to several previous rulings, was declared unproven. According to him, if a Judicial Review decision provides different considerations on the same substance, this condition could potentially create legal uncertainty. ‘The law must provide certainty, not confusion. If in one ruling money laundering is declared unproven, and then in another case construction it reappears as if it remains a basis, the public has the right to question the consistency of law enforcement,’ he stated. Ali also questioned the grounds for Irfan’s detention, which has lasted more than 101 days. According to him, detention should not be carried out merely because a person has the status of a suspect or defendant. Law enforcement officials are obliged to prove the existence of objective and subjective reasons as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. ‘Is there a risk of flight? Is there an attempt to destroy evidence? Is there a potential to repeat the act? All of these must be tested. Detention must not turn into a form of punishment before a legally binding court ruling exists,’ he said. The final scrutiny focused on the arrest process, which was said to have been carried out simultaneously with the first summons, even though there was still a subsequent summons agenda. For Ali, this condition raises serious questions about the respect for the due process of law principle. ‘When legal procedures are not carried out carefully, the justice that is the main goal of the law can be threatened. Therefore, the legality of the arrest and detention is very worthy of being tested through a pre-trial mechanism,’ he concluded.