T

he Supreme Court, which is in the spotlight for the alleged involvement of its officials in a number of graft cases, recently issued a controversial pretrial regulation that could prolong the handling of criminal cases in the future.

While several legal experts have urged judges at courts across the country not to hand down rulings at pretrial hearings, the Supreme Court instead banned law enforcement institutions from filing case reviews to challenge pretrial rulings.

Consequently, law enforcement institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) have no choice but to accept any pretrial ruling in the future, even if it is marred by irregularities.

The KPK lost three pretrial motions heard at the South Jakarta District Court in 2015.

Before the regulation was issued, a law enforcement agency whose case was rejected at the pretrial stage had two options: file a case review or rename a suspect and refile the case.

The new Supreme Court regulation looks set to lead to more sagas like the endless legal process involving graft suspect La Nyalla Mattalitti, who won three pretrial motions against the East Java prosecutors office. After each victory the Soccer Association of Indonesia (PSSI) chairman only renamed him a suspect and refiled the case.

It remains unclear whether La Nyalla will once again file a pretrial motion after the East Java Prosecutor’s Office renamed him a suspect for the fourth time last week.

Supreme Court spokesman Suhadi defended the new regulation, saying the Court issued the regulation to follow up a recent Constitutional Court ruling revoking prosecutors’ rights to file case reviews in criminal cases.

The Constitutional Court maintained in its ruling that only defendants or their heirs could file a case review.

Suhadi said moves taken by law enforcement agencies and suspects who challenged pretrial rulings in past years were unjustified because the case review mechanism, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court, was a legal tool granted by the state only to defendants who had received a guilty verdict.

“At a pretrial hearing, a suspect is not yet a defendant, while in fact the right to a case review belongs only to defendants and their heirs,” Suhadi told The Jakarta Post on Sunday, adding that the new regulation provided courts across the country with a legal basis to reject any incoming case reviews filed to challenge pretrial rulings in the future.

For example, the KPK’s case review challenging a controversial pretrial ruling issued by the South Jakarta District Court in May 2015 to halt the investigation into former Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) chief Hadi Poernomo can now be dropped. The case review filed by former president director of state port operator PT Pelindo II, RJ Lino and KPK suspect after the same court rejected his pretrial motion on Jan. 26 can also now be dropped.

Suhadi said that it was the prerogative of individual judges whether to comply with the new Supreme Court ruling in making a final ruling on the KPK and Lino case reviews.

KPK commissioner Saut Situmorang was not available for comment on Sunday, while Lino’s lawyer Maqdir Ismail decried the regulation describing it as an “injustice” because it limited the rights for suspects to challenge controversial pretrial rulings.
______________________________