Why Was Hasto Sentenced to 3.5 Years for Bribery, Yet No Prosecution of Obstructing the Investigation?

What is the case that ensnared the Secretary General of the PDI Perjuangan, Hasto Kristiyanto?

The case involving Hasto Kristiyanto is an extension of the sting operation conducted by the KPK on January 8, 2020, against former KPU Commissioner Wahyu Setiawan. Wahyu is suspected of receiving bribes to facilitate the path of Harun Masiku from PDI-P to be appointed as a member of the DPR, replacing Nazarudin Kiemas who passed away.

In the development of the case, the KPK has named four suspects, namely Wahyu Setiawan (the recipient of the bribe), Agustiani Tio Fridelina (a former member of the Bawaslu, intermediary), Saeful Bahri (PDI-P staff, the briber), and Harun Masiku (the briber). However, Harun Masiku has evaded capture, and his whereabouts remain a mystery to this day. Since January 17, 2020, he has officially been designated as a fugitive and has been placed on the wanted list (DPO).

As it developed, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) named Hasto Kristiyanto a suspect in late December 2024. He was charged with alleged obstruction of justice under Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law. Hasto is suspected of deliberately concealing information and protecting Harun Masiku's whereabouts.

In line with this, Hasto has been designated as a suspect in the bribery case concerning the management of DPR members for the 2019-2024 period. He is suspected of contributing funds and coordinating the process of delivering bribes through his associates, Saeful Bahri and Donny Tri Istiqomah.

He underwent his first trial as a defendant on March 14, 2025. Less than four months later, precisely on July 3, 2025, the KPK Prosecutor demanded that Hasto be sentenced to 7 years in prison and a fine of Rp 600 million, with a subsidiary of 6 months' imprisonment.

Why did the panel of judges declare that Hasto Kristiyanto was not proven to have obstructed the investigation?

The panel of judges at the Jakarta Corruption Court stated that Hasto was not proven to have obstructed the investigation related to the bribery case concerning the interim replacement of a member of the DPR, Harun Masiku. He is thus free from the charges under Article 21 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes.

"Based on all the facts, there is no evidence of the defendant's intention to prevent, obstruct, or thwart the investigation process, thus the element of intentionally preventing, obstructing, or thwarting directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution, or examination of the suspect or witness or defendant in a corruption case is not fulfilled," said Judge Sunoto, while reading the considerations, Friday (25/7/2025).

In its considerations, the panel of judges assessed that the public prosecutor from the KPK failed to prove the element of intent on Hasto's part to obstruct the ongoing legal process. The judge stated that Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law is a material offense that requires proof of a concrete consequence in the form of an obstruction or failure of the investigation.

"In this case, there is no evidence that the investigation failed because the investigation is still proceeding according to applicable procedures," said Judge Rios.

Regarding the order to sink the mobile phone, the judge found that the order did not come from Hasto and referred to an internal party ritual. The most crucial fact is that the mobile phone in question, which was alleged to have been destroyed, still exists and can be seized by the KPK.

Legally, the judge also highlighted the issue of timing in the prosecutor's indictment. The alleged act occurred on January 8, 2020, while the suspect status for Harun Masiku was only established on January 9, 2020. According to the judge, the process on January 8 was still in the investigation stage, not the inquiry stage, which is not included within the scope of Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law.

What were the judges' considerations in declaring Hasto guilty and sentencing him to 3.5 years in prison?

The considerations of the panel of judges were based on the strength of electronic evidence and fundamental legal aspects. The key to the guilty verdict in the bribery case was the electronic evidence in the form of WhatsApp conversations. Chief Judge Rios Rahmanto explained that the inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses regarding the source of the bribe funds were effectively countered by this digital trail.

The judge referred to a conversation on December 16, 2019, between witness Donny Tri Istiqomah and Saeful Bahri. Within a span of just a few seconds, Donny sent a message that explicitly mentioned two different sources of funds: "Mas Hasto is giving Rp 400," which was immediately followed by the message, "the 600 is from Harun, they say."

According to the judge, this evidence legally and convincingly shows that Hasto provided funds of Rp 400 million to facilitate Harun Masiku's path to the DPR.

This consideration was reinforced by the member judge, Sunoto, who stated that Hasto had the motive and organizational authority to carry out such actions. "When formal efforts fail, the defendant resorts to illegal means," said Sunoto.

How did Hasto and PDI-P respond to the verdict?

Hasto stated that he accepted the 3.5-year prison sentence from the panel of judges in the bribery case involving the PAW of Harun Masiku. However, he emphasized that his acceptance of the judge's verdict was not an admission of guilt, but rather a stance against what he perceives as injustice and the use of law as a tool of power.

"I accept this in the context of injustice. The theme of demanding justice will always be relevant," said Hasto.

He also assessed that this case cannot be separated from the political agenda leading up to the PDI-P Congress. The legal proceedings against him are related to efforts to thwart the party's consolidation.

"Moreover, this is also related to the party consolidation agenda. From the beginning, it was stated that there are those who want to disrupt the PDI Perjuangan Congress, wanting to 'interfere' with the congress," he said.

The PDI-P considers the 3.5-year prison sentence for Hasto as part of an effort to disrupt the consolidation ahead of the PDI-P Congress scheduled to take place in early August 2025.

The Chairman of the DPP PDI-P, Djarot Saiful Hidayat, stated that his party respects the judge's decision, but from the beginning, the party has assessed that the case involving Hasto is not purely a legal matter. He referred to it as a form of political judiciary that has emerged alongside PDI-P's critical stance towards the government.

"Of course, we must respect this, but once again, this is essentially a political event, a political trial, because it originated from a political incident," said Djarot when met after Hasto's verdict hearing.

However, according to Djarot, there is no evidence that Hasto provided bribe money to former Commissioner of the General Election Commission (KPU) Wahyu Setiawan. Meanwhile, the main perpetrators in the bribery case have been legally processed for a long time.

"If the issue is Harun Masiku, then just arrest Harun Masiku. Do not let the Secretary-General be made a scapegoat or a sacrifice," said Djarot.

What steps will the Corruption Eradication Committee take in response to this verdict?

KPK Chairman Setyo Budiyanto respects the judges' decision regarding Hasto Kristiyanto. However, he expressed disappointment and questioned the acquittal verdict handed down to Hasto in the obstruction of investigation charges.

"Yes, in my opinion, the presumption is clear, the wording of the article is also clear, anyone who intentionally prevents, obstructs, or frustrates," said Setyo on Friday (25/7/2025) evening.

Regarding the next legal steps, such as filing an appeal, Setyo stated that his side will not rush. The KPK will wait and study the complete copy of the verdict along with the judges' considerations within it before making a decision.

"That effort will come after we receive the complete verdict. I will not preempt because the first authority lies with the public prosecutor," he stated.