Respondent Requests Judge to Reject Lodewyk Pusung's Pretrial Motion

The pre-trial hearing filed by Lodewyk Pusung at the South Jakarta District Court resumed on Thursday (30/7). The session was scheduled for the submission of evidence by the respondent, followed by the presentation of conclusions.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s legal counsel continued to request that the panel of judges grant the entire pre-trial petition. The petitioner asked that the suspect designation against Lodewyk Pusung be declared invalid, along with all subsequent decisions issued by the respondent.

In addition, the petitioner requested that the panel of judges order the respondent to release Lodewyk from state detention and restore his legal rights, honour and dignity to their original state.

The respondent also submitted written evidence marked T-1 through T-70, and based its arguments on expert testimony presented at previous hearings.

In its conclusions, the respondent affirmed that the suspect designation against Lodewyk Pusung satisfied the requirements of law, as it was based on at least two valid pieces of evidence as stipulated in Constitutional Court Decision Number 21 of 2015.

The respondent also rejected the petitioner’s argument questioning the results of the audit by the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP). According to the respondent, there is no provision requiring the calculation of state losses to be carried out by the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK) as a condition for designating a suspect. The BPKP’s authority to conduct investigative audits and calculate state losses has also been regulated under Presidential Regulation Number 20 of 2023.

Furthermore, the respondent refuted the petitioner’s expert opinion regarding the sequence of issuing the Investigation Order (Sprindik) and the Notice of Commencement of Investigation (SPDP). According to the respondent, the Sprindik is the basis for commencing an investigation, so the SPDP is only issued after the investigation has begun.

The respondent also argued that the petition requesting that the Investigation Order be declared invalid does not constitute an object of pre-trial proceedings. According to the respondent, the petitioner’s arguments regarding the elements of the criminal offence, state losses, and the quality of the evidence enter into the merits of the case, which should be examined in a criminal trial rather than in a pre-trial forum.

Therefore, the respondent asked the panel of judges to uphold all exceptions, declare the pre-trial petition inadmissible, or reject the petitioner’s entire petition.