11 Nov Belief in Justice Weakens When Money Can Buy Everything (With 2 POV : The Poor and the Rich)
The law is there for justice and to regulate community activities so that the environment will be safe, orderly and fair. Humans need laws and regulations so that they are not arbitrary in life. Human nature that always wants to be in power can pose a threat to other humans. Because of that nature, humans can exploit everything. Therefore, a law was created to regulate the space for human movement so as not to endanger other humans.
Indonesia is a legal state that regulates its people based on the 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia. This is stated in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution. However, there are still many who question the enforcement of legal justice in Indonesia. Indonesia has a stigma that the law is stricter for the lower classes than for officials and people who have money. Is the stigma true? This article will show the reality of justice in Indonesia from various case studies. Take a good look!
Gayus Halomoan Tambunan’s sentencing case
Gayus is a tax official who abuses his authority and takes bribes. Based on kompas.com he was proven guilty because he abused his authority when handling PT Surya Alam Tunggal’s tax objections, causing a loss to the state of Rp 570.92 million. He has also given false information regarding money worth Rp. 28 billion that came from the proceeds of corruption. The prosecutor finally charged Gayus with 20 years in prison.
This case was deemed unfair when Gayus was able to enjoy the 2010 COMMONWEALTH Bank Tournament of Champions tennis match in Bali, even though he should have been in prison (Brimob Detention Center, Kelapa Dua, Depok, West Java). He said that he was missing his family and wanted to take a vacation because he was stressed. From these cases can provide that in prison there is still injustice. People who have a lot of money can buy law enforcement, and they can still travel to Bali.
Case of Setya Novanto
Setya Novanto was involved in the E-KTP corruption case with various individuals from other countries. Setya Novanto intervened in conditioning the company that won the E-KTP project auction and he also managed to make the budget for the e-KTP project approved by the DPR worth Rp. 5.9 trillion. The estimated profit obtained by Setnov is 11% or Rp. 574.200.000. The chronology of the arrest of Setnov as a suspect also encountered various obstacles. It took four months to be able to put Setnov in prison.
The thing that makes Setnov’s problem unfair is that Setnov’s detention cell at the Sukamiskin Correctional Institution, Bandung, West Java, is luxurious. Setnov is also still able to eat at the Padang restaurant in Gatot Soebroto RSPAD even though he is still a prisoner. How can society not question justice if the status of prisoners can still roam outside the prison? Is it effective to give punishment to the higher-ups?
Justice for Samirin
Samirin got a prison sentence because he picked up the rubber sap stuck to the tree. The sap is only worth Rp. 17,480, but this grandfather is still serving a prison sentence because the owner of the garden, Bridgestone, criminalized Samirin. In this case, the prosecutor was very persistent in detaining Samirin on the grounds that she was afraid that Samirin would run away and was not responsible.
Is the court’s decision fair? Samirin only takes the remaining rubber sap that sticks to the trees. Besides, this geezer also has no intention of actually stealing. coincidentally he just passed the plantation, and he did not take this rubber sap many times. Even the profit that Samirin got from taking the sap was not much. Why is justice enforcement so strict on this one issue?
Similarities of cases to Samirin’s case
Saulina Bori Sitorus receive a prison sentence for cutting down a durian tree that has a diameter of 5 inches. Asyani was imprisoned for cutting down 7 teak wood belonging to Perhutani. Minah was imprisoned for stealing 3 cocoa pods from PT RSA worth Rp 2,000. And there are still several more cases that are not mentioned in this article.
Quoted from a statement by a sociologist from the University of Indonesia, Imam Prasodjo said that this sentence illustrates a legal process that is dead for the purpose of the law itself. The law applied only follows the format but does not take into account substance and conscience. The government should be sensitive to the injustices that society continues to experience. And because our country is a state of law, justice in law must be upheld.