KPK to Re-examine Hasto Case After Acquittal

Judges Cite Timing in Ruling Against PDIP Secretary General

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) plans to meticulously review the court’s reasoning after Hasto Kristiyanto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), was found not guilty of obstructing the investigation into the fugitive Harun Masiku.

Judicial Decision Sparks KPK Review

KPK spokesman Budi Prasetyo announced the commission’s intention to re-evaluate the circumstances surrounding Hasto‘s alleged obstruction. The KPK will scrutinize the judges’ considerations, particularly the timing of Hasto‘s actions in relation to the investigation’s commencement.

“Of course we will also see again the allegations of what was done so after the investigation. This means that the actions of the pioneering after the investigation process or after the issuance of the sprindik will be seen again,”

—Budi Prasetyo, KPK Spokesman

The commission will also consider the court’s directive for the return of a notebook confiscated from Hasto.

Judges’ Rationale: Pre-Suspect Actions

The Jakarta Corruption Court judges acquitted Hasto Kristiyanto, stating his alleged obstructive actions occurred before Harun Masiku was officially declared a suspect and before the investigation had formally begun. This distinction proved crucial in the verdict.

The court found no concrete evidence that Hasto‘s alleged attempt to soak a cellphone constituted an effort to destroy evidence, as the device was retrievable by the KPK. The judges emphasized that the elements of intent to obstruct were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Considering that based on a comprehensive analysis of all trial facts, there is no evidence of cellphones that are soaked or submerged as alleged, the fact that the HP in question can be confiscated by the KPK, so that there is no evidence of efforts to eliminate evidence, so the elements in this intentional cannot be legally and convincingly proven,”

—The Judges, Jakarta Corruption Court

Furthermore, the judges ruled that Hasto‘s refusal to provide potentially incriminating information when questioned as a witness on June 6, 2024, was within his constitutional rights, citing the principle of *Nemo Tenetur in Ipsum Accusare*—the right against self-incrimination.

This legal principle, recognized universally in criminal law and protected by Indonesia’s constitution, allows individuals to avoid providing testimony that could worsen their legal situation. The court underscored its fundamental nature.

The Indonesian justice system’s handling of obstruction of justice cases often hinges on precise timing and intent. For instance, in a 2023 case involving the obstruction of a tax audit, the court emphasized that the accused’s actions occurred after the audit had officially commenced, differentiating it from a pre-investigation phase (Source: Directorate General of Taxes data, 2023).