TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Supreme Court ruling hands more lenient remission, parole terms for graft convicts
Change Size
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigators bring in House of Representatives deputy speaker Azis Syamsuddin from the Golkar Party for questioning at KPK headquarters on Sept. 24. He was later named as a suspect in a bribery case that also implicates former KPK investigator Stepanus Robin Pattuju and lawyer Markus Husain. (Antara/Indrianto Eko Suwarso)
T
he Supreme Court recently eased the requirements for graft convicts to file for remissions and paroles in its recent judicial review ruling, in a move that activists say was another example of further deterioration in the national antigraft campaign.
The court’s ruling, handed down on Oct. 28, as reported by kompas.com, essentially makes it easier for graft convicts to apply for remission or parole as it rolled back requirements for the convicts as outlined in the Government Regulation (PP) No. 99/2012, which stipulates terms of the detainees’ release from correctional facilities.
In a judicial review filed by five petitioners, all of whom are currently serving their sentences in the Sukamiskin Penitentiary in West Java, they challenged requirements in the 2012 regulation stipulating that only graft convicts with justice collaborator status and who have fully paid fines and restitution related to their case could apply for a remission or parole.
The petitioners argued that such requirements were in contradiction with higher laws, namely the 1995 Correctional Law.
The bench granted the petitioners demand, arguing that such requirements as outlined in the 2012 law were not in line with the spirit of restorative justice. They added that the rights of the convicts to file for a remission of their sentence should be nondiscriminatory.
The bench also argued that the correctional facilities have “full authority” to grant remissions for the inmates, while adding that the authorities at the facilities should also consider the impact of prison overcrowding when deciding whether to grant remissions for inmates.
In granting the petitioners’ demand, the terms of remission were rolled back to a government regulation issued in 1999 that stipulates all convicts, regardless of the severity of their crimes, would be in line for a remission as long as they showed good conduct during their imprisonment.
