Nivell Rayda, Heru Andriyanto & Farouk Arnaz – The Attorney General's Office said on Friday that it had three possible responses to the High Court ruling rejecting its decision to halt the prosecution of two antigraft agency deputy chairmen.
"The first choice is to take the two to court," said Muhammad Amari, the deputy attorney general for special crimes. "The second is to implement the 'deponering' principle and the third is to appeal against the ruling to the Supreme Court."
'Deponering,' a legal leftover from the Dutch colonial system, allows prosecutors to halt a prosecution in the public interest. Legal practitioners and law officials have urged the AGO to invoke the principle.
The Supreme Court, however, is unlikely to be an option for the AGO in this case, but the High Court has the final say in pretrial motions.
"We are aware of that, but there has been a legal precedent in which the police challenged a High Court ruling on a pretrial motion lodged by [gold mining firm] Newmont and won the appeal at the Supreme Court," Amari said.
Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney General Darmono said his office could not make a decision until it had officially received a copy of the verdict from the High Court.
"We respect the court's verdict, and before we take the necessary legal measures, we need to examine the case thoroughly to ensure the actions we take conform with the interests of law enforcement and the wider interests of the nation," he said.
National Police spokesman Brig. Gen. Zainuri Lubis said police would provide prosecutors with any help they needed in the case, including arresting Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) deputies Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra Hamzah.
"But only if it's necessary," he said. "That's how the coordination works. We're ready to provide any help within the scope of the law."
Under the 2002 Law on the KPK, Bibit and Chandra must be suspended from active duty should they face criminal prosecution, but this can only be decreed by the president.
Denny Indrayana, a presidential adviser for legal affairs, said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono would not issue the decree for Bibit and Chandra's suspension until the AGO had decided whether to revive the case.
Denny said Yudhoyono also was mulling several options to resolve the case out of court. "There are several theoretical alternatives that his advisers have briefed him on, including abolishing the case altogether," he said.
University of Indonesia legal analyst Rudi Satriyo said abolishing the case would have massive moral consequences, particularly given the AGO's suspicions about Bibit and Chandra. He added that the AGO could still issue another letter of termination of prosecution.
"The letter of termination rejected by the High Court said the case was being halted for 'sociological reasons,'" Rudi pointed out. "The AGO could issue another citing lack of evidence. That would be legally possible."
The High Court's decision was based on a lawsuit filed by corruption suspect Anggodo Widjojo, who challenged the AGO's decision to drop all charges against the two deputies even though it had a case because "it would be more morally harmful than beneficial to try the two in court."
Constitutional Court Judge Akil Mochtar said the case against Bibit and Chandra could hinge on the outcome of Anggodo's case.
"If Anggodo is found guilty in the Corruption Court, then immediately the case against Bibit and Chandra will start to look shaky," he said. Akil said the legal quandary resulted from the differing takes on the case pitting Bibit and Chandra against Anggodo.
According to the KPK, Anggodo is a suspect for attempting to bribe Bibit and Chandra, while the AGO maintains the businessman is a victim of extortion.
"The court will determine Anggodo's legal standing, whether this is a case of attempted bribery or extortion," Akil said. "This decision will influence the Bibit and Chandra case. If Anggodo is convicted, then the AGO should drop the case against Bibit and Chandra for lack of evidence."
University of Indonesia legal analyst Hasril Hertanto said the best option for the two deputies was to stand trial.
"That way, the public will know for sure whether they're guilty," he said. "By going to court, we can finally also have closure on whether the two were framed by Anggodo."
But Bibit and Chandra's lawyer, Taufik Basari, said putting the two on trial would defy the president's instruction that the case be settled out of court. "The ball is in the AGO's court," he said. "We hope they come up with the best legal solution and drop the case.
"The case against Bibit and Chandra is full of holes. The AGO should not proceed because it would tarnish its reputation."