Annotation of the Corruption Case Decision on Electronic Citizen Identity Card (e-KTP), This Is the Result
Allegations of corruption project of electronic Citizen Identity Card (e-KTP) became one of significant corruption cases because of the amount of loss that incurred to the state amounting to IDR 2,3 trillion. Not only that, this case also dragged a number of state officials from both the government and the House of Representatives. This issue was discussed in a seminar entitled “Direction of Law Enforcement of Corruption Crimes in the Case of Electronic KTP” in Depok, Monday (15/10).
The seminar participants were the authors of the annotation of the Electronic KTP Setya Novanto’s court decision. The authors were Junaedi, Flora Dianti and Prof. Topo Santoso. Although it has not yet been finalized, the authors have mentioned the interim results of the annotations. Junaedi said, the short-term goal of the procurement of Electronic ID cards is to integrate population data from the e-KTP (single ID).
Meanwhile, in the long run, it is expected that after the entire population’s e-KTP data is integrated, then e-voting or electronic elections can also be held in 2024. “This Single ID should be able to store data about birth, marriage, and can be used for various types of public services,” he said.
One of the officials who had the most attention and is now a convicted person is Setya Novanto. In April 2018, the judges of the Corruption Court had sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of 500 million and subsidiary for 3 months. Not only that, Setya Novanto was also sanctioned with the revocation of the right to hold public office for 5 years.
However, there are many things to be noted regarding the verification process during the trial of the Setya Novanto’s case took place. Related to this, Flora Dianti divided it into three parts, namely the validity of the method of obtaining evidence (admissibility), the minimum level of evidence, and the validity of evidence.
Regarding admissibility, as is known, in the trial of Setya Novanto, there were several items of evidence obtained from abroad such as documentary evidence of money changer from overseas and recording of Johanes Marliem from the FBI. Regarding evidence obtained from overseas, the panel of judges should in its consideration state that this acquisition came from a mutual legal assistant (MLA) agreement or reciprocal assistance in criminal matters.
Based on Law No. 1 of 2006, requests for assistance in finding evidence can be made through government to government or through agent to agent. However, if Indonesia has not entered into an MLA agreement, then the request for assistance in finding evidence can be obtained on the basis of reciprocity. With the absence of legal reasoning in its decision, then, in fact, this is contrary to Article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Furthermore, related to the minimum of the evidence instrument Flora specifically highlighted the lack of evidence in the examination of the Setya Novanto’s case. This can be seen from the facts regarding Tim Fatmawati and Andi Narogong as the tender regulators, as well as the facts regarding the realization of the fee which was only obtained from witness testimony.
Even though in accordance with Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge must not impose a criminal sentence on someone except if with at least two valid items of evidence that the judge obtains a conviction that a criminal act actually occurred and that the defendant is guilty of doing so.
The last is related to the validity of the evidence presented at the trial. Interesting things are presented by Flora regarding expert testimony and letters. “The expert from the BPK presented at Setya Novanto’s trial was an expert who conducted a financial audit, whose report on the calculation of state financial losses was used as documentary evidence,” she concluded.
According to her, there has been legal abuse here. Because only one thing should be used as evidence, namely the testimony as an expert, or the results of the report as a letter. “If you really want to present experts from the BPK, they should invite other experts who have comparable capabilities but is not involved in the audit of state financial losses,” she added.
Meanwhile, Prof. Topo Santoso highlighted the indictment article imposed on Setya Novanto. In the indictment prepared by the public prosecutor, Setya Novanto was charged alternatively, namely Article 2 of the Corruption Law jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the KUHP or Article 3 of the Corruption Law jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the 1st Criminal Code.
According to him, there is actually no significant difference between the two articles other than the subject. Article 2 of the Corruption Law of the subject is every person broadly, while Article 3 of the Corruption Law is the subject of every person who has the authority and misuse of that authority.
In the verdict, Setya Novanto was proven guilty of violating Article 3 of the Corruption Act. But, according to Topo, the panel of judges should be able to distinguish the authority of Setya Novanto as Chair of the Golkar Party Faction with his authority as General Chair of the Golkar Party. “I agree if Setya Novanto is considered to abuse his authority as a faction chairman, not as a Golkar general chairman,” he said.
But unfortunately this decision confuses the two authorities. “Actually, it is far more appropriate if Setya Novanto is considered to be trading in influence, but unfortunately we have not included it in our Corruption Law,” he added.
In this discussion, it was also discussed about political parties that should be able to be punished as in several countries such as Turkey, Greece and Croatia. Political parties can be positioned as corporations in criminal cases, where the principal sanction that apply are fines. However, if we look at the current condition of Indonesia where the financial resources of political parties come from members’ and state’s contributions, this is deemed inappropriate if applied as is in Indonesia.
