The State Tests Itself, the Public Watches
There comes a time when what is being tested in a case is not just the guilt or innocence of a person. What is being tested is the state’s ability to abide by the rules it has created itself. A state based on law is distinguished from a state based on power not by the severity of its punishments, but by its willingness to submit to procedure, even when that procedure slows its own steps.
The case ensnaring former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah has now entered such a phase. Public attention is indeed focused on the naming of the suspect, the searches, the money, the gold, and the various pieces of evidence seized. However, behind all that, a debate has developed that is no less important: how should the state handle a case when a top law enforcement official becomes the subject of an investigation and a suspect on serious charges of corruption and money laundering.
One aspect of this debate began when the Police’s Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortastipidkor) ‘handed over three cases’ involving Febrie to the Attorney General’s Office. This move immediately sparked discussion among legal experts. The discussion then turned to procedural matters. Amid various interpretations emerging in the public sphere, attention focused on the term used by the authorities, namely ‘case handover’. The Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) essentially regulates the mechanism for the ‘handover of case files’ from investigators to public prosecutors. The KUHAP does not explicitly regulate a mechanism for the ‘handover of a case’ or the ‘transfer of an investigation’ from one investigative institution to another.
This is reflected, among other things, in Articles 8, 110, 138, and 139 of the KUHAP, which govern the flow of case file submission, the examination of files by the public prosecutor, and the transfer of a case to court after the file is declared complete (P-21). This is why a debate has arisen regarding the legal basis for the term ‘case handover’ and the possibility of transferring an investigation not explicitly regulated in the KUHAP. Former Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Mahfud MD was among those who raised this issue. In his view, if what actually occurred was a transfer of the investigation, such a mechanism is not recognised in the KUHAP. He even reminded that the authority to take over an investigation is explicitly held by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) under certain circumstances as stipulated by law.
However, a different view came from Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections, Yusril Ihza Mahendra. From a procedural law perspective, he argued that case resolution could actually proceed more quickly if the investigation is conducted by the Attorney General’s Office. The reason is that the investigation and prosecution functions reside within a single institution, thereby shortening the process of shuttling case files between investigators and public prosecutors.
These two views need not be read as mutually exclusive. Mahfud is reminding us of the importance of procedural discipline, while Yusril is looking at the need for efficiency in law enforcement. Both converge on the same point: a case of this magnitude must be handled correctly, transparently, and accountably. What is more interesting is the final part of Yusril’s statement. He said the biggest challenge now is no longer speed, but how the Attorney General’s Office maintains its independence and objectivity in handling a case involving its former top official in the field of special crimes. Yusril even used an expression easily understood by the public: do not let the impression arise of ‘jeruk makan jeruk’ (the fox guarding the henhouse). Public doubt, he said, can only be answered through a professional, firm, objective, and transparent legal process.
His next statement is arguably even more important. Yusril openly invited the media, the House of Representatives (DPR), the public, anti-corruption activists, and legal experts to scrutinise and criticise the entire investigation and prosecution process. In other words, public oversight is not considered a disruption to law enforcement, but rather an integral part of the rule of law mechanism itself. Yusril’s invitation aligns with the move by Commission III of the DPR to form a Working Committee to oversee the handling of this case.