The change in detention status of former Minister of Religious Affairs Yaqut Cholil Qoumas has sparked public controversy. The case involving the former minister concerns alleged corruption in the 2023–2024 hajj quota.
Social media has been abuzz with discussions about the approval of his request for house arrest ahead of Eid, based on family and health considerations. This led to public suspicion due to differing explanations. The latest reports indicate that Yaqut has returned to detention at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) detention center on Monday (Mar. 23).
A lecturer and criminal law expert at Universitas Gadjah Mada, Dr. Sigid Riyanto, observed that public protests reflect differing perspectives on law enforcement authorities’ policies.
“Some members of the public have expressed protest, clearly holding views that differ from the decisions made by law enforcement,” he said on Monday (Apr. 6).
According to Sigid, differences in legal perspectives are natural, with each side presenting its own arguments. On one hand, the suspect’s legal counsel believes their client is not guilty. On the other hand, KPK, as a law enforcement body, including investigators and prosecutors, holds a subjective interest in representing the public.
“Therefore, it is not wrong for there to be subjective interests. However, law enforcement officials should still maintain objective judgment,” he added.
Despite their subjective role as representatives of the state and victims, law enforcement officials, in this case, the KPK, are expected to remain consistent and accountable for their decisions. However, Sigid emphasized that punishment must not be imposed without legal norms or based solely on subjectivity. Judges, likened to the blindfolded Lady Justice, must assess cases objectively, taking into account the interests of both the defendant and the state, including the motives, degree of fault, and arguments presented.
Upholding the presumption of innocence, Sigid explained that detaining a suspect, even after they have been formally named, is not mandatory, as detention is facultative rather than imperative. He noted that detention may be applied for various reasons, such as the severity of potential punishment, the risk of evidence being lost, the possibility of flight, or obstruction of justice.
Nevertheless, Sigid stressed that court decisions must be accepted as legal norms. He pointed out that no ruling can fully satisfy all parties, as judges must balance legal certainty, justice, and utility. In line with the principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur, judges resolve conflicts between opposing parties.
“Judges are accountable not only in this world but also in the hereafter, as justice is ultimately grounded in belief in the Almighty God,” he stated.
Author: Hanifah
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Jasmine Ferdian
Photo: Tingey Injury Law Firm – Unsplash