Nivell Rayda, Jakarta – The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw its support behind plans by the Attorney General's Office to drop the prosecution of two antigraft agency deputies despite warnings by legal analysts that it would only drag the pair further into legal limbo.

Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah, deputy chairmen of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), had been accused by businessman Anggodo Widjojo of extorting Rp 5.1 billion ($570,000) from him in 2009 in exchange for halting a criminal investigation of his brother, Anggoro, and lifting a travel ban on him.

Analysts and antigraft activists see Anggodo's accusation and the AGO's decision to prosecute the case as an attempt to undermine the KPK's authority.

Amid growing public pressure, the AGO last month said it was mulling the use of the old Dutch legal principle of "deponering" which allows prosecutors to drop criminal charges, in the case against the two commissioners.

But many have pointed out that the principle would not be invoked due to the absence of evidence but to protect the public interest.

Chief Justice Harifin Tumpa on Tuesday said the Supreme Court in its legal view on the application of the principle, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedures, "supports a deponering because legally it is within the power of the AGO."

Harifin was quoted by Antara news agency as saying that the use of the principle would automatically render void the court's instruction for the AGO to proceed with a trial.

The AGO is also seeking input from the House of Representatives, the Constitutional Court and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono before formally issuing any decision.

Hasril Hertanto, a legal expert from University of Indonesia, told the Jakarta Globe that although other institutions could not intervene in the AGO's final decision, the House "could still exert political pressure on the AGO to cancel the deponering."

The analyst added that the House might want to retaliate against the KPK, that has so far charged 41 former and current lawmakers for graft. Year after year, the House is listed by Transparency International as one of the most corrupt institutions in Indonesia. Several lawmakers have already said that they would reject the AGO's decision to drop the case.

Bibit's and Chandra's lawyer, Taufik Basari, said he was concerned over the final draft of the deponering decision. "We are still waiting for the final decision to be made. We don't want Bibit and Chandra to be held hostage over the status of the case."

Zainal Arifin Mochtar, a legal expert from Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, said that if the principle were applied, Bibit and Chandra could be seen as guilty in the eyes of many, as they would not get the chance to clear themselves in court.

"Deponering [in this case] would mean that there is a sufficient amount of evidence but prosecuting the case would harm the public interest. So in a way, the AGO would be deceiving the people in the face of mounting pressure," he said, adding that such a decision would harm the KPK's reputation.

Last week, the Jakarta High Court upheld a decision that found Anggodo guilty of attempted bribery and raised his sentence from four to five years.

Hasril said deponering would allow Anggodo to take advantage of the legal limbo. "At the Supreme Court, Anggodo might argue that according to the AGO, Bibit and Chandra are guilty of extortion, meaning that he is a victim and not a perpetrator of a bribery attempt," he said.