Heru Andriyanto – The Attorney General's Office has found itself ensnared in complications arising from a legal case involving two antigraft officials whom prosecutors had eagerly pursued before dropping the charges amid public outrage.

Now that a court has ruled the termination of the case by the AGO unlawful, prosecutors seem unable to answer a question directly: Are antigraft deputies Chandra M Hamzah and Bibit Samad Rianto again suspects?

"Going by logic, yes. But we are not saying that," said Muhammad Amari, the deputy attorney general for special crimes, who on Tuesday was surrounded by journalists during his visit to National Police headquarters. "We will deliver our stance after we decide the next measures."

Chandra and Bibit were declared suspects in September for allegedly abusing their powers and committing extortion related to their handling of a corruption case involving graft fugitive Anggoro Widjojo. The AGO immediately accepted the case from police and declared it ready for trial.

However, it was forced to halt the case in December after the Constitutional Court played shocking wiretapped phone conversations indicating a plot to bring down the two and after President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for the termination of the case amid a media uproar.

But the South Jakarta District Court and the Jakarta High Court recently accepted a motion by Anggoro's brother, Anggodo Widjojo, and ruled that the case against Chandra and Bibit must be brought to the court.

So, will Chandra and Bibit be detained because their alleged crimes are punishable by a jail term above the minimum five years, allowing suspects to be locked up during trial?

"Detention is not a must. It applies only when [law enforcers] consider it necessary under a certain circumstance, for example, if they worry that the suspects will flee justice. But if police don't think that way, detention is not necessary," Amari replied, only inviting more questions on whether the AGO was firm toward the principle of equality before the law.

"Yes, it's difficult, someone may have a different opinion from others, so we need to forge a common opinion for the stance of the institution, not individuals," Amari said.

Anggodo, who has successfully persuaded the court to overturn prosecutors' decision to terminate the criminal case against the two antigraft officials, may add another headache to prosecutors because he is currently being tried for attempting to bribe officials of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), including Chandra and Bibit, to clear graft charges from his runaway brother.

If Anggodo is found guilty for bribery, then the charges against them of extorting from Anggoro would have no legal standing.

So, will the AGO wait for the conclusion of graft Anggodo's trial before it decides its stance on Chandra and Bibit? "There is no relevance," Amari said without elaborating.

The AGO has suggested several options in response to the recent court ruling, either bringing the two officials to court appealing against the ruling or using the attorney general's exclusive right to halt the prosecution in common interest, known as "deponering."

While no decision has been made yet, the office cited procedural issues, such as the late delivery of a copy of the verdict, to justify its slow response.

The South Jakarta District Court confirmed on Tuesday that a copy of the High Court ruling had been distributed to prosecutors and Anggodo as the plaintiff.

"Every party concerned has received a copy. The ruling is final and binding, it cannot be challenged through an appeal," South Jakarta District Court spokesman Ida Bagus Dwiyantara said.

Antigraft activist Zainal Arifin Muchtar said the protracted case was due in large part to the undecided stance of Attorney General Hendarman Supandji.

"The attorney general should have issued deponering to put an end to the fiasco. It's more an obligation to him than an authority," Zainal said.

"I fully believe that Chandra and Bibit are innocent, the fact-finding team has suggested the same, the president has shared the same idea and the Constitutional Court has proved that the case was fabricated. What else does the attorney general need to consider?"

Zainal, a law expert at Yogyakarta's Gajah Mada University, said he didn't oppose the trial against the two, but raised concern that the KPK deputy chairmen would need to be suspended if they stand trial, and that could cripple the already shorthanded agency.

"It's a disaster to our antigraft campaign if KPK endures a leadership crisis with the absence of most of its leaders," Zainal said. "I am concerned that the fate of Bibit and Chandra is again in the hands of the AGO, and they are clearly not in safe hands."