ST Thomas University Medan Criminal Law EXPERT Berlian Simarmata reminded law enforcement agencies that they are required to submit a Letter of Order to Commence Investigation (SPDP) to parties interested in handling the case. The submission of SPDP is clearly stated in the Constitutional Court (MK) decision Number 130 of 2015 which states that the delay in submitting SPDP by investigators to the Public Prosecutor not only causes legal uncertainty but also harms the constitutional rights of the reported party and the victim.
“This is something that law enforcement agencies, including the Corruption Eradication Committee, must do. So in the Constitutional Court’s ruling, it is stated that investigators are required to notify and submit a letter of order to commence an investigation to the public prosecutor, the reported party, and the victim or reporter no later than seven days after the issuance of the letter of order for investigation, that is the content of the Constitutional Court’s ruling. So investigators are said to be required,” he said, Tuesday (17/9).
Berlian made this statement in response to the KPK’s stance that has not submitted the SPDP to the suspects in the alleged corruption case of the KSU process and the acquisition of PT Jembatan Nusantara. He said that one of the consequences of the delay in submitting the SPDP was the invalidity of the legal process carried out by the KPK, both in the examination process and the determination of the suspect against the reported party.
“Therefore, the consequence according to me and I often say in court is that if it is not done, then everything based on the relevant sprindik becomes invalid, so if based on the sprindik the suspect is examined, then the examination is invalid, the results are invalid if the SPDP is not submitted,” he stressed.
Berlian revealed the important reasons for submitting the SPDP to the reported party or suspect. One of them is to provide legal certainty to the public prosecutor, the reported party, and the reporter.
He views the Constitutional Court’s decision regulating the submission of SPDP aims to limit the arbitrary attitude of law enforcement agencies. Including, providing space for the parties to the case to fight for their constitutional rights by filing a pretrial lawsuit.
Also read: KPK Capim Dominated by Law Enforcers, ICW Says Prone to Intervention
“Well, that must be conveyed immediately so that there is mutual control. So there is certainty for the public prosecutor, there is certainty from the reporter, there is certainty from the reported party about how far the case has progressed.”
Previously, the follow-up hearing of the pretrial lawsuit of the suspect in the alleged corruption case of the business cooperation process (KSU) and the acquisition of PT Jembatan Nusantara by PT Angkutan Sungai Danau dan Penyeberangan (ASDP) Indonesia Ferry Persero was again held at the South Jakarta District Court (PN Jaksel) yesterday.
In the trial, the legal team of suspect IP brought a number of documents and written evidence to refute the KPK’s argument in determining their client as a suspect. One of the main points questioned in the lawsuit was the absence of a notification letter of commencement of investigation (SPDP) received by IP after being named a suspect by the KPK. (Sru/M-4)
#Law #Enforcement #Agencies #Implement #Constitutional #Court #Decisions
