Roy Suryo's Legal Team Claims Police Expert Only Presented Normative Statements in Pretrial Hearing

Roy Suryo’s legal counsel has stated that the criminal law expert presented by Polda Metro Jaya in a pretrial evidence hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Wednesday (15/7) only delivered normative explanations and did not answer the substance of the issues raised in their petition. Roy Suryo’s lawyer, Refly Harun, said his team is now even more confident in their arguments after hearing the expert testimony from the respondent’s side. “The respondent was unable to show that there is a witness, expert, or document of a certain quality that could be used under Article 32 Paragraph 1,” Refly told reporters after the trial. According to Refly, the expert presented by Polda Metro Jaya explained more about the general provisions of criminal procedure law than addressing the core issues disputed by the petitioner. “What the criminal law expert explained earlier was merely normative in nature. That means the expert’s statement could also be delivered in other pretrial hearings or other courts because he only explained the norms related to how the Criminal Procedure Code operates,” he said. He noted that when the discussion turned to the application of Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, the expert was deemed not to have provided an explanation that answered the issues raised by the petitioner. “When delving into Article 32 Paragraph 1, he himself said there are actually several contradictions, which unfortunately we could not explore further,” said Refly. Refly cited the object used as the basis for the alleged violation of Article 32 paragraph (1) as one of the unanswered points. According to him, the article relates to electronic documents or information, whereas previously, investigators had also shown a physical diploma. “Now, the question is, what exactly is the main piece of evidence? Is it Dian Sandi’s diploma uploaded on the internet, or is it Jokowi’s analogue or physical diploma that was said to be brought and shown at Polda Metro Jaya on 15 December 2025,” he said. Previously, in the trial, the criminal law expert presented by Polda Metro Jaya, Prof. Dr. Erdianto Effendi, had indeed explained more about the limits of a pretrial judge’s authority to examine the validity of a suspect designation. According to Erdianto, a person can be named a suspect if investigators have at least two valid pieces of evidence. “As long as there are at least two pieces of evidence, it is sufficient for investigators to name someone a suspect,” Erdianto said before the sole judge. He also stressed that a pretrial hearing is not tasked with assessing the quality or strength of the evidence in a case. “Whether the strength of the evidence is sufficient? That is not the object of a pretrial hearing, because the strength of the evidence can only be proven later in the main case,” he said. Erdianto reiterated that the scope of a pretrial hearing is limited to examining formal aspects. “The pretrial stops only at examining whether there is evidence, whether the evidence is sufficient,” he said. Furthermore, Erdianto held the view that the Criminal Procedure Code does not regulate a priority order of evidence. According to him, investigators do not necessarily have to obtain witness statements first to name someone a suspect. “Not all evidence in a case involves witnesses. Sometimes there are no witnesses, but the case must still proceed,” he said. Despite this, Roy Suryo’s legal team maintains that the main issue in this pretrial is not merely the quantity of evidence, but the quality of the evidence used by investigators to apply Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law. According to Refly, by the end of the evidence hearing, the respondent had not explained the concrete evidence deemed capable of fulfilling the elements of that article. “Our challenge was not answered or could not be answered by the respondent,” said Refly. The hearing, presided over by sole judge I Ketut Darpawan, has reached the evidence stage. The next agenda is scheduled for Thursday (16/7). “Tomorrow (conclusion) at 2 p.m.,” said sole judge I Ketut Darpawan after the trial. This pretrial case originated from Roy Suryo’s lawsuit against his naming as a suspect by Polda Metro Jaya in a case of alleged dissemination of fake diploma accusations involving the 7th President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo. Through the pretrial petition, Roy Suryo asked the sole judge to declare the suspect designation against him invalid. He also requested the judge to revoke three Investigation Orders issued by Polda Metro Jaya throughout 2025 to 2026.