Is the Release of Tom Lembong and Hasto Kristiyanto the Wrong Way to Address the Politicization of the Law?

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The granting of abolition for Tom Lembong and amnesty for Hasto Kristiyanto by President Prabowo Subianto has been criticized by several legal experts. The release of both individuals is considered a misguided remedy in addressing the issue of legal politicization. Furthermore, it could send a negative signal for the anti-corruption agenda.

"I don't deny that there is a political motive behind the Tom Lembong and Hasto Kristiyanto cases. In Tom Lembong's case, the element of guilt was not met, and there was no mens rea (malicious intent). In Hasto's case, the motive was political, even though there is a legal case, so civil society has been demanding that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) thoroughly investigate those involved since 2020," said Zaenur Rohman, a researcher at the Center for Anti-Corruption Studies (Pukat) at Gadjah Mada University, when contacted on Friday (August 1, 2025).

Nevertheless, if the goal is to resolve the politicization of law, what should be done is to correct the law enforcement practices. For instance, evaluating the performance of law enforcement agencies such as the police and the prosecutor's office. Specifically for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), this can be achieved by restoring its independence through a revision of Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the KPK. The emergence of this law, which among other things makes the KPK part of the executive branch, has made it susceptible to intervention by those in power.

"Well, I see this as a misapplication of the law for political interests. If this pattern is easily used in the future to grant amnesty and abolition for the context of political power interests, the rule of law will be lost, replaced by the supremacy of politics," he emphasized.

On Thursday (31/7/2025) evening, the DPR approved President Prabowo Subianto's request to grant amnesty to the Secretary-General of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, Hasto Kristiyanto, and abolition to former Minister of Trade Tom Lembong. This decision is claimed to be in the interest of the nation and to maintain national integrity.

Tom Lembong was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison in a sugar import case during his tenure as Minister of Trade from 2015 to 2016, by the panel of judges at the Jakarta Corruption Court on July 18. Meanwhile, Hasto was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison on July 25 for being proven involved in the bribery case concerning the replacement of a member of the DPR for Harun Masiku.

If that's the pattern used, it's very convenient to subdue an opponent, criminalize them, and then grant them pardon. That's truly terrifying.

In addition to being considered a misapplication of the law, in the context of eradicating corruption, Zaenur is concerned that the granting of amnesty and abolition may eliminate the extraordinary nature of corruption as a crime. This could send a negative signal for the fight against corruption, as ultimately those convicted of corruption could be pardoned. The effect could be that the public becomes increasingly normalized and tolerant of corruption.

"If that pattern is used, it is very easy to subdue opponents, criminalizing with the law and then granting amnesty. That is very frightening. The future effects are serious; the law is no longer the commander, but rather political interests," he said.

According to Zaenur, amnesty and abolition are indeed the president's prerogative. The constitution then balances this with checks and balances and requires approval from the House of Representatives (DPR).

Amnesty means forgetting the crimes that have been committed so that the penalties imposed by the panel of judges do not have to be served. Meanwhile, abolition refers to the removal of prosecution for an ongoing process against someone who is suspected of committing a crime.

"From a historical perspective, both amnesty and abolition are used in the context of uniting the nation in conditions where the nation is divided due to differing opinions arising from politics. For example, between the central government and regional actors or figures who are politically opposed, such as in the cases of the Free Aceh Movement, the Free Papua Organization, Fretilin, or activists suspected of treason who wish to separate from the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia," he explained.

Looking at that history, amnesty and abolition have indeed been most frequently granted for reasons of differing political views. The aim is reconciliation. However, in the context of Hasto and Tom, Zaenur sees the purpose as transactional politics, rather than national politics.

"It may unite political elites, yes. However, this also means that it will eliminate the quality balancing forces in Indonesia. Power will become even greater, more consolidated with the entry of PDI-P and the Tom Lembong group," he stated.

Aside from Tom and Hasto, President Prabowo also granted amnesty to 1,115 other convicts, and the DPR approved it. In this regard, Zaenur demanded that the government be transparent. This way, the public can also participate in monitoring and critiquing. Furthermore, the public can simultaneously assess the appropriateness of the convicts receiving amnesty, as there will undoubtedly be many questions from the public regarding this matter.

Meanwhile, a lecturer at the Indonesian School of Law (STHI) Jentera, Bivitri Susanti, views the granting of amnesty and abolition by President Prabowo for Hasto Kristiyanto and Tom Lembong as a form of legal politicization. In other words, the legal politicization cases affecting Hasto and Tom are also being resolved through politics.

For Tom Lembong and Hasto, as well as their supporters, this may seem like a resolution to the problem. However, for him, it remains a politicization of the law that could set a bad precedent for the eradication of corruption. Normal legal methods should have been used to resolve it, such as through the appeals mechanism.

"As president, Prabowo has control over prosecutors," said Bivitri.

However, according to him, the granting of amnesty and abolition is indeed regulated under the legal framework of Article 14 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, where this is the authority of the president with the approval of the DPR. Amnesty eliminates all legal consequences for the defendant. Meanwhile, abolition removes everything, including prosecution by the prosecutor.