T

he spotlight has turned on the judicial system'€™s lack of an appeal mechanism for pretrial rulings on criminal allegations, with judges exercising a binding say on cases before they ever go to trial.

In the controversial pretrial petition of former Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) head Hadi Poernomo, the South Jakarta District Court has rejected the Corruption Eradication Commission'€™s (KPK) proposal to appeal the court'€™s ruling, which annulled the antigraft body'€™s investigation into Hadi and declared the commission'€™s investigators illegitimate.

With the court rejecting the possibility of an appeal, the KPK is obliged not only to start from scratch its investigation into Hadi'€™s tax waiver case, but also to employ only active members of the National Police or Attorney General'€™s Office (AGO) as investigators in the case. Most of the commission'€™s investigators are former or non-active members of those two institutions.

South Jakarta District Court head Haswandi, who delivered the ruling on Hadi'€™s case, said he had rejected the KPK'€™s appeal proposal because the Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) made no provisions for appeals against pretrial decisions.

'€œThe South Jakarta court has rejected the proposal to register [an appeal] and to transfer it to the Jakarta High Court. We will not give up. We are currently preparing legal alternatives,'€ KPK spokesman Priharsa Nugraha told The Jakarta Post on Sunday.

Priharsa added that the KPK was currently drafting arguments on cassation and case review motions to ask the Supreme Court (MA) to annul the controversial ruling, which is likely to spur other suspects to make legal challenges to KPK investigations.

Acting KPK deputy chairman Indriyanto Seno Adji questioned the court'€™s refusal to register the KPK'€™s plea given that the antigraft body had been encouraged in its proposal by the MA, which oversees all courts in the country.

'€œAppeal mechanisms as a legal tool were approved by Supreme Court justice Suhadi [recently],'€ Indriyanto said, adding that the KPK would submit its cassation and case review proposals to the MA in the near future.

Contacted separately, Suhadi dismissed Indriyanto'€™s statements, saying that the MA had never confirmed that a pretrial ruling could be challenged at the higher court.

'€œIf the KPK wants to challenge the decision through the appeal mechanism then it should do so,'€ Suhadi told the Post on Sunday.

The senior judge defended the South Jakarta court'€™s refusal of the KPK'€™s appeal proposal, arguing that Haswandi'€™s decision was justified by a 2011 Constitutional Court (MK) ruling that a pretrial decision could not be challenged through an appeal mechanism.

The KPK, Suhadi continued, had to accept the result of pretrial hearings, as the 2011 MK ruling also stipulated that a pretrial verdict could not be annulled through cassation or case review mechanisms.

'€œA pretrial ruling, according to the MK ruling in 2011, is legal and binding after it is issued by lower courts, which means that it cannot be challenged by any legal mechanism. That'€™s the reason why the South Jakarta District Court declined to register the KPK'€™s appeal proposal,'€ Suhadi said.

The MK expanded the functions of the pretrial mechanism on April 28 this year to include examination of legal charges from law enforcement institutions against suspects. Previously, pretrial hearings could only examine the legality of arrests, raids and investigation stoppages.

The lack of clear guidelines on pretrial hearings following the MK ruling has led a number of judges at the South Jakarta District Court, including Haswandi, to use their discretion to make controversial rulings that have crippled the KPK'€™s investigative authority.

Despite the harm caused to KPK investigations, the MA, according to Suhadi, does not have any plans to open up the possibility of appeals against pretrial rulings.