case examination.
Did you know?-In the Indonesian legal system, a “special case title” (gelar perkara khusus) can be requested when thereS critically important public concern or disagreement with the initial investigation’s findings. It allows for a re-evaluation of the case by a team of senior investigators.
“We came here to insist the special case title. There we pour points of objection to the results of the case title and the results of the investigation which was stopped on May 22,” said Deputy Chairperson of TPUA, Rizal Fadhillah, at the Bareskrim polri Building, South Jakarta.
rizal outlined 26 points of objection in a letter. He criticized the termination of the investigation and the case degree carried out by the Criminal Investigation Criminal Investigation. Furthermore, Rizal considered the investigation process incomplete.
Rizal also deemed the proclamation of the investigation results as misleading, as the investigator concluded that the diploma was original. He stated that the proof was carried out by investigators was too simplifying.
“bareskrim by touching and looking at the basin, then called it handpress and it letterpress. Oh I can’t, the research should be scientific paper test, ink test, “explained Rizal.
Rizal said the drive for special case titles wasn’t solely about dissatisfaction.He cited a clear legal basis: “The case is a common concern, I think it is indeed so in his perkolrrh. That if the case is a public concern, a special case title might potentially be submitted. Because we do not feel the ordinary case title yesterday is not optimal, and is not open, and is not in accordance with existing regulations.”
Reader question:-Given the differing opinions between Jokowi’s legal team and the TPUA, what factors do you believe should be most heavily weighed when determining whether to reopen a closed investigation?
Bareskrim’s Findings
Bareskrim confirmed that there was no criminal element in the fake diploma accusation.Police said they tested Jokowi’s diploma with a comparison, and the results were identical.
“The results of this investigation have been carried out a case title to provide legal certainty with the results of no criminal acts,” said Director of General Crimes (Dirtipidum) Bareskrim Polri Brigadier General Djuhandhani Rahardjo Puro, in a press conference on Thursday (5/22/2025).
Djuhandhani said the investigation began with public complaints by TPUA, signed by Eggi Sudjana. The articles in question included forgery and/or forgery of authentic deeds, or including false information in authentic deeds, violating Article 263, 264, 266 of the Criminal Code, and/or Article 68 of Law Number 20 of 2003.
Police examined 39 witnesses, including four from TPUA. Djuhandhani mentioned that Eggi Sudjana was invited twice but did not attend. TPUA was then represented by a team appointed by Eggi Sudjana. Investigations revealed that TPUA was not registered in the General Law Governance (AHU).
The investigation was initiated due to the public’s complaint, but since no criminal elements were found, it was stopped. He stated, “what is the investigation for? To find out whether there is a criminal act or not according to what is complained. If it is according to criminal acts and so on, of course further steps are to make police reports, then the process of investigation. However, from this complaint, it can be concluded that there is no criminal act so that the case was stopped by the investigation.”
Weighing the Scales: Reopening the Investigation
The decision to reopen a closed investigation, such as the one surrounding the accusations against President Jokowi, is a complex one. It’s a process laden with legal and ethical considerations. When dealing with cases of significant public concern, legal bodies must carefully consider whether the initial investigation was thorough and impartial. Factors beyond the initial findings must come into play.
When the TPUA (Tim Pembela Ulama dan Advokat) insists on a “special case title,” public interest and potential for injustice are at the forefront.The Indonesian legal system provides this mechanism as a safeguard. The goal is to ensure fairness and transparency.
Several critical factors should heavily influence the decision to reopen a closed investigation, particularly given the differing perspectives of parties involved, like TPUA and Bareskrim:
Sufficient New Evidence: This is paramount. Has TPUA presented compelling evidence the original investigation overlooked? New forensic analysis, witness testimonies, or document discoveries could be crucial. If Rizal Fadhillah’s 26 points of objection uncover previously unexamined evidence, it considerably strengthens the case for re-examination.
Procedural Errors: Were there irregularities in the initial investigation? Did Bareskrim follow proper protocols? Did they consider all relevant legal articles cited in the complaint, including Articles 263, 264 and 266 of the Criminal Code? Any significant procedural missteps warrant revisiting the case.
Conflicts of Interest: Were any investigators compromised by conflicts of interest? Any appearance of bias can undermine public trust. This consideration is especially critically important given the political sensitivity of the diploma case.
Public Interest: Is there sustained and widespread public concern? Does the case have implications for the rule of law or public trust? As Rizal Fadhillah highlighted, cases of significant public concern should be taken most seriously.
Expert Opinions: Seeking independent expert opinions can provide clarity. This includes forensic document examiners and legal scholars. Such perspectives can offer crucial insights.
What action could be taken? Here’s what the Indonesian legal system is capable of:
Gathering and evaluating new evidence: This is,first and foremost,essential.
Examining prior investigation methods: Every step of the prior inquiry needs to be checked.
Seeking independent review: Enlisting the help of unbiased analysts is an excellent idea.
Failing to consider these factors risks undermining public confidence in the legal system. A fair and obvious process is vital. The core issue is not just about the diploma’s authenticity, but upholding the principles of justice.
In cases where a special case review is requested,the Indonesian legal system leans toward prioritizing open investigations to ensure justice.
