Hasto Versus KPK Pretrial, Suspect Determination Claimed Not in Accordance with MK Decision

JAKARTA, KOMPAS — The pretrial hearing on the determination of suspect status against Hasto Kristiyanto by the Corruption Eradication Commission or KPK finally began at the South Jakarta District Court on Wednesday (5/2/2025). Hasto, as the petitioner, through his legal counsel, highlighted numerous aspects of arbitrariness committed by the KPK as investigators, including non-compliance with the Constitutional Court or MK's decisions.

The trial was presided over by a single judge, Djuyamto, with the agenda of summoning the parties. Although not present in person, Hasto sent his legal representatives; namely Ronny Talapessy, Todung Mulya Lubis, and Maqdir Ismail. The legal team of KPK was also present after being absent during the first pretrial hearing on Tuesday (21/1/2025).

In turn, Hasto's legal counsel outlined eight discrepancies behind the designation of the Secretary General of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle as a suspect. This includes allegations of legal politicization because Hasto, before becoming a suspect, was fervently criticizing the policies of the 7th President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo.

Ronny Talapessy stated that the determination of suspect status against Hasto was made without an examination of the concerned party. This is considered to be in contradiction with Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014.

This is an arbitrary action that disregards the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 because it bypasses the required process in determining a suspect, namely the examination of witnesses or potential suspects.

The Constitutional Court's decision states that the process of determining a suspect and investigating someone until they become a suspect requires preliminary evidence, which consists of two pieces of evidence. In addition, investigators also need to examine the prospective suspect.

"This is an arbitrary action that disregards the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 because it bypasses the required process in determining a suspect, namely the examination of witnesses or potential suspects," said Ronny.

Since being named a suspect on December 24, 2024, Hasto, according to Ronny, has never provided any statement. Hasto was named a suspect in two cases, namely bribery in the management of interim replacement (PAW) of DPR members for the 2019-2024 period and obstruction of the investigation of the case.

Then, Ronny continued, the determination of Hasto as a suspect skipped the investigation stage, because investigators are not allowed to find a suspect before there is evidence. Furthermore, Hasto's suspicion was considered illogical by the attorney because it contained contradictions. They questioned how Hasto was involved in bribery and at the same time obstructed the investigation process of the case.

In addition, three suspects—except Harun Masiku—namely former KPU Commissioner Wahyu Setiawan; former Bawaslu member Agustiani Tio Fridelina; and PDI-P cadre Saeful Bahri have received the judge's verdict and become convicts. Therefore, the investigation into the two cases against Hastro actually creates new injustice and legal uncertainty for the convicts.

The determination of Hasto as a suspect, Ronny said, was not supported by two sufficient initial pieces of evidence. The KPK instead referred to evidence in other cases that had already been final or received a court decision with permanent legal force.

The issuance of two investigation warrants as the basis for determining Hasto as a suspect has the potential to be nebis in idem, which is an error in the process of investigating corruption crimes. The prohibition aims to protect a person from prosecution and retrial for the same case against him, to avoid repeated examination of cases that can result in different decisions/disparities in the imposition of decisions, and to ensure legal certainty for everyone in the examination of criminal cases.

On the other hand, the KPK is considered to have confiscated Hasto Kristiyanto's belongings in an arbitrary manner and violated the Criminal Procedure Code because it was not in accordance with procedures. This is because the KPK confiscated Hasto's belongings by disguising themselves, manipulating, seizing, and checking without permission.

The search and confiscation of Hasto's belongings were carried out through Hasto's personal staff, Kusnadi, on June 10, 2024. Kusnadi was never summoned and asked for information as a witness/suspect in other crimes.

However, when Hasto was questioned, KPK investigators came to Kusnadi in disguise and lied as if Kusnadi was called by "Father". The term "Father" for Kusnadi refers to Hasto Kristiyanto. Kusnadi immediately went up to the second floor of the KPK Building.

"In fact, Hasto never called Kusnadi. And, Kusnadi was immediately questioned and asked for information in the examination room and a search and confiscation of Hasto and Kusnadi's belongings were carried out," continued Hasto's legal team.

Finally, the evidence confiscated by KPK investigators was deemed to have no direct connection to the alleged criminal acts committed by Hasto. Therefore, the confiscation was contrary to Article 39 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The evidence included a mobile phone, notebook, laptop, receipts for PDI-P operational payments, savings books, apartment executive cards, voice recorders, and wallets containing cards.

When reading his demands, Maqdir Ismail presented nine points to the judge. The points in question, among others, granted the entire request, declared the respondent's actions in determining the applicant as a suspect as an arbitrary act, canceled the investigation warrant, and canceled the investigation.

In addition, requesting the respondent to revoke the ban on overseas travel against the applicant, declare all decisions issued further by the respondent invalid, declare the evidence collected by the respondent invalid, restore all legal rights of the applicant, and order the respondent to pay the court costs incurred.

Sole judge Djuyamto also gave time to the KPK as the defendant to respond to Hasto Kristiyanto's lawsuit. However, the KPK had objected because Hasto's lawsuit had a number of improvements so that it needed more time to prepare a response.

However, Djuyamto believes that the legal process must continue so that the KPK is obliged to prepare a response. Even so, the judge gave the KPK additional time to prepare a response until the next hearing at 11:00 WIB, Thursday (5/2/2025). There is an additional two hours because the hearing should have continued at 09:00 WIB, Thursday.

"After the respondent's answer tomorrow, we will give each of them a chance. Two evidentiary hearings for the applicant, two evidentiary hearings for the respondent," said Djuyamto.

Hasto's evidentiary hearing will be held on Thursday, right after the KPK presents its answer. When that time comes, Hasto's attorney must prove his lawsuit in writing. Meanwhile, on Friday (6/2/2025), the hearing will continue with the testimony of witnesses/experts from the applicant's side.

Written evidence by the respondent/KPK began on Monday (10/2/2025) at 09.00 WIB. The following day, Tuesday (11/2/2025) continued with evidence from witnesses/experts from the respondent. On Wednesday (12/2/2025), the judge will provide a conclusion and Thursday (13/2/2025) continued with the verdict hearing.