There was an important lesson in the verdict of the Pertamina oil corruption case handed down by the Jakarta Corruption Court: the sensational allegations built during the investigation collapsed when scrutinized at trial.
On Friday, February 27, 2026, the panel of judges found nine defendants guilty and sentenced them to prison, ranging from 9 to 15 years. Muhamad Kerry Adrianto Riza, son of oil businessman Mohammad Riza Chalid, received the heaviest sentence: 15 years in prison and nearly Rp3 trillion in restitution.
However, there was a story behind the verdict: several of the serious charges did not hold up at trial. The most striking was the claim that the case caused state economic losses amounting to Rp12.57 trillion plus US$11 million. The judges considered the figure merely an assumption not supported by solid evidence or legal facts.
The panel of judges relied on the Supreme Audit Agency's (BPK) audit, which put the state losses at Rp9.4 trillion. Even then, one judge gave a dissenting opinion, expressing his doubt about the basis for the calculation. He said the BPK audit only affirmed the investigators' findings without adequate testing.
The collapse of the serious charges raised an important question: how is it possible that a high-profile case that allegedly caused hundreds of trillions of rupiah in losses went ahead without solid evidence?
It is a very pertinent question, especially if we recall various narratives that circulated at the beginning of the probe. At the time, allegations of fuel adulteration at Pertamina and the sale of the cheaper Pertalite at the price of Petramax scandalized the public. There was even an extraordinary claim about Rp1,000 trillion state losses.
The accusations undermined public trust in Pertamina's products, prompting some consumers to switch to private gas stations. Ironically, the accusations that had already shaped public perception were never tested in court.
The dramatic approach to handling investigations has become increasingly common. In some cases, officials have even resorted to performative gestures to attract public attention – for example, displaying piles of confiscated cash worth trillions of rupiah in front of cameras. Some law enforcement officials exposed sensational details irrelevant to the case, such as sex scandal allegedly involving the suspect.
This tendency is known as legal populism: law enforcement emphasizes shock effect over accuracy in prosecution. While the strategy may be effective in winning applause or support from the political elite, it risks undermining the credibility of law enforcement itself.
Bringing heavy charges to court without sufficient evidence can jeopardize not only the credibility of individual law enforcement officials but also public trust in the investigation, prosecution, and judicial systems. Furthermore, "trial by opinion," which takes place before the actual trial begins, can erode the principle of presumption of innocence.
Ultimately, the courtroom must serve as the final arbiter of the "legal populism" practiced by prosecutors. Within those walls, an indictment must be tested by the strength of evidence – not by sensationalism. If a defendant is proven guilty, the court is duty-bound to hand down a firm and commensurate sentence.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2092585/law-enforcement-falls-into-temptation-of-sensationalis