Revisiting Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance (BLBI) I
On April 24, 2017, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) finally named a suspect in the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance (BLBI) graft case. The suspect is the former Chairman of the Indonesia’s Bank Restructuring Agency (BPPN) Syafruddin Arsyad Temenggung, who is also a suspect on another graft caseimplicating PT Victoria Securities International. Since the beginning of the investigation into the case, the KPK had emphasized that their BLBI investigation is different from the investigation conducted by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).
On the E-KTP Graft Case: Miryam’s Pre-Trial
The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) recently began investigatng Miryam S. Haryani, the former member of the House Commission II of the House of Representatives (Hanura), for perjury. But Miryam decided to fight back and filed for a pre-trial. On May 15, 2017, the first hearing of the pre-trial was held.
Constitutional Court’s Decisions, Are They Worth Anything?
As soon as the Governor of Jakarta Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama was deemed guilty of blasphemy on May 9, 2017, the Panel of Judges ordered Ahok’s immediate detention. The Panel of Judges said that according to the provision of Art. 197 paragraph (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a verdict would be considered void if an immediate detention order was not issued. The problem is that the Constitutional Court (MK) once examined the constitutionality of said Article. The verdict, the Article is not constitutional. Did the Panel of Judges miss this, or did they deliberately ignored MK’s ruling?
JICT Workers Union
Just two days after President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo wrapped up his official visit to Hong Kong, the workers union of PT Jakarta International Container Terminal (JICT) began a series of rallies and threatened to perform strikes for a week from May 15, 2017 to May 20, 2017. But later, the threats were retracted and the workers promised to work as usual. What happened?
Reviewing KPK’s Performance (Part II)
In the previous part of this series we briefly discussed two of the biggest corruption cases that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) handled/is handling with disappointing progress/results. But there are more disappointing examples.
Reviewing KPK’s Performance (Part I)
For the past few years, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has unravelled many high profile graft cases. These cases are supposed to be big catches. But when we really try to review the KPK’s performance in investigating and bringing these cases to prosecutions, we’d see just how disappointing the picture really looks. While the cases may be high profile cases, because of the names supposedly implicated, in the end, the KPK seemed to only manage to bring down the small fry. Here are examples of such cases:
Ahok Banned from Public Office?
After the Governor of Jakarta Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama was declared guilty of blasphemy on May 9, 2017, several foreign correspondents noted on Twitter that the sentence included a life time ban from public office. Is this true?
Revisiting Rizieq Shihab’s Cases (Part II)
In the first instalment of this series we some of the cases Rizieq Shihab is being investigated and how ridiculous they are. But the leader of the Islam Defender’s Front (FPI) is not the only one being investigated; his allies are under pressure too.
Ahok’s Blasphemy Trial: Know Your Judges
The quality of the ruling in Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnaman’s blasphemy trial is nothing short of appalling. Many important facts and consideration presented during trial were ignored by the Panel of Judges, and they may have misinterpreted a Constitutional Court decision in the process. This brings to fore the issue with quality of judges in the lower courts, and thus raising questions with regards to Indonesia’s justice system. Let’s take a look at the judges who oversaw the blasphemy trial.
Ahok’s Blasphemy Trial: An Odd Verdict
On May 9, 2017, the Panel of Judges of the North Jakarta District Court ruled that the Governor of Jakarta Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama was guilty of blasphemy. The public prosecutors, however, previously said that they could not find enough evidence to charge Ahok with blasphemy, and so they charged him with inciting unrest. The Panel’s ruling therefore is more than what the prosecution demanded. The question is, why?