Legal Literacy - This article delves into the urgency of in absentia trials in corruption cases involving fugitives in Indonesia, examining the legal implications and the need to recover state financial assets. Discover in-depth insights into the legal process and challenges in maximizing the return of state losses due to corruption.

Law Enforcement Dynamics in Corruption Cases with Fugitive Defendants

Indonesia is currently shaken by corruption cases with very large nominal values from throughout the history of corruption cases that have occurred in Indonesia. Corruption is closely related to state financial losses, which then become an urgency to be recovered through appropriate law enforcement processes. In the law enforcement process, corruption perpetrators will not always be cooperative and responsible for the crimes they have committed. On the contrary, there are corruption perpetrators who flee and are listed as wanted persons (DPO), and finally the law enforcement process cannot be carried out optimally. The existence of corruption perpetrators with DPO status then gives rise to the implementation of in absentia trials.

The legal basis for implementing in absentia trials needs to be explored to ensure the realization of legal certainty as the main goal of law, considering that Indonesia is a State of Law as stipulated in Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945). One legal expert, namely Gustav Radburch, stated firmly that legal certainty is the main goal inherent in law, so the realization of legal certainty must be carefully considered.

In absentia trials in corruption cases are basically legally protected by the provisions of Article 38 Paragraph (1) of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption, which reads that “If the defendant has been legally summoned, and is not present at the court hearing without a legal reason, the case can be examined and decided without his/her presence”.

However, we know that the law does not specifically regulate the procedural law for in absentia examination of corruption crimes. The procedural law used refers to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). In the examination of trials in absentia, this is motivated by the Defendant not attending the trial because he/she has fled and left no trace at all, so his/her whereabouts are not clearly known and his/her status is DPO. DPO itself is not a term that has been explicitly regulated in the KUHAP.