The Constitutional Court dashed Susno Duadji’s hopes of evading what he claimed were “fabricated” corruption charges levelled against him when it rejected his request for a judicial review on Friday.
The court ruled that Article 10 of the 2006 Law on Witness and Victim Protection, which stipulates that a whistle-blower who is also a suspect in case cannot be immune to legal charges, did not run counter to the 1945 Constitution, as Susno had said.
The court understood the plaintiff’s argument that the article could discourage future whistle-blowers from coming out of the woodwork, but scrapping the article would create a legal loophole for criminals seeking to escape punishment, Constitutional Court judge Achmad Sodiki said.
“The Constitutional Court rules that this legal policy does not run counter to the Constitution, and therefore the plaintiff’s argument has no legal ground,” Sodiki said.
Comr. Gen. Susno Duadji requested the court review the law after he was declared a graft suspect and detained by the police for alleged bribery and embezzlement, an accusation he claimed was fabricated by his former police colleagues who were upset by his whistle-blowing accusations.
The Witness and Victims Protection Agency (LPSK) had failed to secure Susno’s release from police custody to a safe house because of differing interpretations of the law.
The LPSK argued that Susno was a whistle-blower who deserved protection rather than detention as a suspect in a case he had disclosed. The police disagreed.
In Friday’s hearing, court judge Hamdan Zoelva gave a dissenting opinion, saying the article was conditionally constitutional.
“The plaintiff could be named a suspect and arrested after a verdict has been reached on the reported case,” he said.
Susno made headlines early this year when he revealed a bribery case centering around former tax official Gayus Tambunan. The case has implicated tax officers, high-ranking police detectives, judges and prosecutors, and highlighted rampant case brokering in the judiciary.
Susno later disclosed another bribery case within the police force, which allegedly took place during an investigation into an embezzlement allegation involving an Arowana fish breeding company in Riau.
The police, however, suspected Susno was involved in the case and named him a suspect in May. He is accused of taking Rp 500 million from a case broker to speed up the investigation into the case.
Susno’s lawyer, Henry Yosodiningrat, said his side respected the verdict.
“But the court should consider judge Hamdan’s opinion because it is the ‘spirit’ of Susno’s request for judicial review,” he said.
