Pretrial Motion Rejected, Hasto's Suspect Status Remains Valid

JAKARTA, KOMPAS — Sole Judge Djuyamto decided not to accept Hasto Kristiyanto's pretrial motion. This is because Hasto is a suspect in two cases, while the applicant did not clearly specify the invalidity of the suspect designation in which case. The judge did not touch upon or consider the evidence or witnesses during the trial.

This is stated in the exception of the respondent, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which was accepted by Judge Djuyamto during the pretrial decision hearing at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday (13/2/2025). The legal teams of both parties were present in full, including the public who came to show their support.

"Adjudicating, granting the exception from the respondent (KPK). Second, declaring the pretrial request of the petitioner to be vague or unclear, declaring the pretrial request of the petitioner to be inadmissible," stated Djuyamto.

According to the judge, after studying the petition and the respondent's answer, Hasto is a suspect in two different criminal acts. However, the petitioner's argument states that the evidence used by the respondent is insufficient, and has even been used in court and has permanent legal force.

The judge was of the opinion that the applicant's application should have been submitted in two pretrial applications, not in one application.

On the other hand, there has not been a final court ruling that includes a decision on obstruction of investigation. There is only the bribery case involving the management of DPR members for the 2019-2025 period through the verdicts of Wahyu Setiawan and Agustiani Tio Fridelina.

The difference in types of cases will also contain different pieces of evidence. The determination of the invalidity of preliminary evidence is considered inappropriate because it affects the judge's assessment. This is because there is a possibility that evidence may be deemed valid in one case, but invalid in another.

Adjudicating, granting the exception from the respondent (KPK). Second, declaring the pretrial request of the petitioner vague or unclear, declaring the pretrial request of the petitioner inadmissible.

"Due to this situation, the Judge is of the opinion that the applicant's request should be submitted in two pretrial applications, not in one application," explained Djuyamto.

Because the KPK's exception to the complaint was accepted, other exceptions do not need to be considered and assessed.

In addition, Djuyamto also assessed that the petitioner's arguments should be presented during the court trial of the case, not during the pretrial hearing. This is because the pretrial hearing does not have the authority to assess the substance or material of the criminal case. This includes whether or not a case is fit to proceed to trial.

After the verdict was read, Djuyamto closed and left the courtroom. However, Hasto Kristiyanto's attorney appeared to be discussing and deliberating. Meanwhile, the KPK legal team, Iskandar Marwanto contacted the KPK leadership via telephone.

For information, Hasto Kristiyanto's attorney insisted that the KPK's determination of Hasto Kristiyanto as a suspect was arbitrary. The process of taking evidence was also considered not in accordance with procedures.

They hold on to the final court decision of Wahyu Setiawan and Agustiani Tio Fridelina. Both have received their verdicts and are serving their prison sentences.

With the end of the pretrial hearing, Hasto's suspect status remains valid. He is a suspect in the bribery case of the management of DPR members 2019-2024 and obstruction of the investigation of the case.