Ina Parlina, Jakarta – The Judicial Commission (KY) said on Friday it would investigate the controversial Supreme Court ruling that exonerated a high-profile graft fugitive after it received a report condemning the panel of judges that issued the decision.
Commission chairman Suparman Marzuki said the report also claimed that the judges might have breached legal procedures in adjudicating the case. "We will investigate it, as it is also important for getting clarification from the Supreme Court," he added.
A Supreme Court panel announced on Thursday that it had cleared graft fugitive Sudjiono Timan of all charges after granting his request for a case review, which the court said was filed by his wife.
Sudjiono, the former president director of state-owned company PT Bahana Pembinaan Usaha Indonesia (BPUI), fled the country after he was convicted of graft and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
He had been found guilty of disbursing billions of rupiah to several questionable debtors before the financial crisis hit the nation in the late 1990s, causing billions of rupiah in state losses.
In its consideration, the case review panel said Sudjiono's case was a civil case, as the money he disbursed was a loan. Therefore, the panel argued, what Sudjiono did could not be seen as a crime.
The ruling is in line with the verdict issued by the South Jakarta District Court in 2002 that said Sudjiono did not breach any regulations despite the state losses.
The case review panel consisted of justices Suhadi, Andi Samsan Nganro, Sophian Marthabaya and two other ad hoc judges, Sri Murwahyuni and Abdul Latief.
Suparman said that the court's ruling was peculiar, as it decided to grant the defendant's request for a case review while he was still on the run. "As a fugitive, he is supposed to no longer have his legal rights. Why should we give a pardon to someone who does not want to be held accountable? He has disgraced our judiciary, as he dodged his sentence," Suparman said. "The ruling could damage our judicial system."
The case review request was filed by Sudjiono's wife on April 17, 2012. Sudjiono's whereabouts remain unknown.
Critics accused the court of breaching its own regulation, which stipulated that it would reject case review requests if the convicts failed to attend the hearing. The Supreme Court, however, stood by its decision despite criticisms, saying that the regulation did not apply retroactively.
Justice Suhadi, who presided over the 2013 case review, said Sudjiono's wife filed the case review just before the memo was issued on June 28, 2012. "It clearly states that we will process those case review requests filed before the memo was issued," he said.
According to Suhadi, the wife had the rights to represent Sudjiono. "The panel considered her as his next of kin. The Code of Criminal Procedure allows that. And she attended the hearing," he said.
Suhadi later urged the public to respect the court's ruling, which he said was final. "It's up to them how they see the verdict, but the judges see the case from the legal perspective. Please understand that," he said.
Suhadi, who claimed his office had no information about Sudjiono's whereabouts, said that the people could always file a civil lawsuit against Sudjiono – should he show up.
Alvon Kurnia Palma of the Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (YLBHI) deemed the ruling "hurt the public's sense of justice in the fight against corruption".
Emerson Yuntho of watchdog Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) said the Supreme Court's rationale for issuing the case review was only an excuse. "Supreme Court leaders, or its monitoring unit, as well as the Judicial Commission must scrutinize this case and show their commitment to fighting corruption," he said.