PRIME NEWS POST 

The INDONESIAN , (Jakarta)– The pre-trial petition filed by the Indonesian Law Enforcement Oversight and Advocacy Institute (LP3HI) and the People’s Alliance for Justice and Prosperity (ARUKKI) against the Police Corruption Eradication Task Force (Kortas Tipikor) risks being dismissed before judges even examine its substance.

The two bodies are legally required to first prove they qualify as victims, reporters, or authorized legal representatives of victims or reporters in the case involving former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes Febrie Adriansyah.

Without one of these legal qualifications, claims of representing public concerns do not confer the right to challenge alleged investigation termination under Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

Article 161 of the revised KUHAP has narrowed and clarified who may file a pre-trial petition regarding the validity of halting an investigation. Such applications may only be submitted by the victim, the reporter, or their legal counsel to the head of the relevant district court, stating clear grounds.

This formulation differs sharply from the old KUHAP, which used the broad category of “interested third parties.” Accordingly, LP3HI and ARUKKI cannot rely solely on their status as civil society organizations, law enforcement monitoring activities, or arguments about advancing public interest. They must demonstrate a direct legal link to the police report that launched Kortas Tipikor’s investigation.

Judges must verify who filed the initial police report, whether either petitioner is listed as a reporter, who has suffered losses as the victim, and whether a special power of attorney has been issued by the victim or reporter. If none of these are confirmed, the petition lacks a legally valid applicant.

Pre-trial proceedings are not a public complaints forum, nor can they be used as an actio popularis by any individual or organization claiming to speak for the people.

These limitations are not mere technicalities to be set aside in the name of anti-corruption efforts. Legal standing is a prerequisite threshold that determines whether a court has authority to hear a party’s claim.

Judges should not jump to discuss the legality of case handover, investigative status, or evidence preservation before confirming the petitioner holds rights explicitly granted by the KUHAP. Sympathy for public anxiety cannot replace statutory requirements.

The petitioners’ claim that they “represent public concern” itself underscores the petition’s weakness. The KUHAP does not list “concerned members of the public” as eligible to file pre-trial challenges to investigation terminations. The law names specific parties: victims, reporters, or their authorized representatives.

Concern is a social sentiment; legal standing is a legal status that must be proven through official reports, victim identity, or formal powers of attorney. The two cannot be equated through public interest rhetoric alone.

If the petitioners are not the original reporters, they have no direct link to the case in question. If they are not victims, they cannot show harm stemming directly from the alleged termination. If they lack authorization, they cannot legally act on behalf of those the law empowers. All three gaps are sufficient grounds to dismiss the petition without ruling on Kortas Tipikor’s actions.

Civil society’s role in monitoring law enforcement remains vital, but social oversight does not automatically confer procedural standing. Organizations may criticize practices, report suspected crimes, request public information, observe trials, or push oversight bodies to conduct inquiries. However, when choosing the pre-trial route, they must comply with statutory limits on who may apply. Courts cannot expand eligibility based on an organization’s stated goals without explicit legal mandate.

Petitioners also cannot invoke outdated provisions that recognized “interested third parties.” The alleged actions and this dispute arise after Law No. 20 of 2025 entered force, so the revised KUHAP governs. Reviving the old category would disregard the legislature’s deliberate choice to restrict standing to victims, reporters, or their counsel.

Beyond standing, petitioners must prove an actual investigation termination has occurred. To date, there is no official report that proceedings have stopped. On the contrary, the Attorney General’s Office has issued three new investigative orders covering the Krakatau, PLN, and Asabri cases, and reaffirmed Febrie’s suspect status.

Without a formal termination decision from Kortas Tipikor, petitioners not only likely lack standing but are also challenging an action that may never have legally existed. The combination of uncertain eligibility and an unproven subject renders the petition fundamentally flawed.

Pre-trial proceedings must not become a political stage to judge Polri based on assumptions, concerns, or interpretations of press statements. Every claim must be supported by evidence: proof of being a reporter or victim, special powers of attorney, and the formal termination decision being challenged.

Kortas Tipikor should respond openly and robustly, asking judges to resolve standing before addressing substance, presenting documents confirming ongoing investigation status, and distinguishing case handover from investigation termination. This is not an attempt to evade judicial oversight, but to uphold procedural discipline so pre-trial mechanisms are not misused by ineligible parties or against non-existent decisions.

Polri also has no reason to be defensive over allegations of halting the case. Kortas Tipikor opened the investigation, conducted searches, seized high-value evidence, and courageously named a former senior law enforcement official as a suspect. These facts cannot be erased by a petition that has yet to prove it belongs in court.

The South Jakarta District Court must safeguard pre-trial review as a legal control mechanism, not an arena for unbounded claims of public representation. If LP3HI and ARUKKI cannot prove they are victims, reporters, or authorized representatives, judges should rightly dismiss the petition.
—

Reported from various media sources //photo from Google documents // contribution by Prime News Post international online media // news.paper
Related News