The pretrial judge again surprised observers through his decision in the South Jakarta District Court. The judge partially granted the lawsuit of the Anti Corruption Community (MAKI) that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) appoints a new suspect in the Century Bank bailout corruption case as mentioned in the indictment of Budi Mulya’s.

The pretrial judge, in his decision on April 9, 2018, explicitly mentioned: ordering the RESPONDENT to carry out further legal proceedings in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations applicable to the allegation of corruption in Century Bank, in the form of conducting investigations and assigning the status of suspect to Boediono, Muliaman D. Hadad, Raden Pardede et al, and proceeding with the indictment and prosecution in court proceedings at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court or transferring them to the Police or the Prosecutor's Office to conduct investigations and prosecutions in the trial process at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court.

This pretrial decision raises both support and opposition in the handling of the case and the polemic on the authority of the pretrial judge. Since the beginning of the process, the Century Bank case has indeed led to a long debate. Not only because of the magnitude of the value of state losses, but also the impression of KPK’s sluggishness in handling the parties allegedly involved. Currently, controversy occurred again related to the authority of the pretrial judge, considered to have exceeded his authority that is the domain of the KPK in determining the suspect.

However, regardless of the controversy of the judicial ruling, KPK must be consistent with its own indictment, which stated that the defendant Budi Mulya as the Deputy Governor of Bank Indonesia for Monetary Management and Foreign Exchange has conducted unlawful acts together with other parties.

Essentially, the court decision should be respected. The Century Bank case must be seen from the standpoint of law enforcement rather than politics. As long as the evidence leading to the names in the Century Bank case is complete, the KPK must carry out the legal procedures.

The handling of the Century Bank bailout case should continue to get public attention because it concerns public trust and justice. It is ironic that on the one hand the public has to fight hard to obtain basic rights, but on the other hand a few people can easily be bailed out using state money to cover up their deviant behavior.

It must be kept in mind, in addition to the Century Bank case, the KPK also still has a bigger homework, that is the BLBI (Bank Indonesia Liquidity Assistance) case. Naturally, it is expected that the handling of the Century Bank case will result in a domino effect in dismantling the BLBI conspiracy.*** (Firdaus/Agus)