The official statement from the Presidential Palace, conveyed by the Head of the Presidential Communication Office, reaffirms one fundamental point that deserves appreciation: full respect for the ongoing legal process, even when it involves a high-ranking government official. In the context of the trial concerning bribery for protecting online gambling sites—which has implicated several names, including the Minister of Cooperatives, Budi Arie Setiadi—the government has made it clear that it will not interfere with the work of law enforcement agencies. This stance is not merely a response to public allegations but reflects the maturity of Indonesia’s democracy and its strengthening legal supremacy.
Hasan Nasbi, Head of the Presidential Communication Office, emphasized that the government upholds the rule of law and entrusts the handling of the case entirely to the relevant law enforcement institutions. He stressed that those who are guilty will be proven guilty, while those who are not should not be forced into guilt. This narrative is crucial for maintaining public trust in the integrity of the judicial system and affirming the government’s neutral stance in legal matters.
The Palace’s careful approach—avoiding premature conclusions despite the public attention surrounding the case—demonstrates caution and respect for the presumption of innocence. This aligns with the universal principle that fair legal processes must proceed without political pressure, biased public opinion, or unverified media speculation. In a modern democracy, institutional stability depends greatly on the ability to exercise restraint and avoid drawing public officials into the realm of opinion before legal facts are established.
Nevertheless, this issue serves as a serious test of the government’s credibility. Thus, Hasan Nasbi’s statement should be understood as a strategic reaffirmation of the government’s position: no effort to protect anyone, but also no willingness to sacrifice someone for the sake of public pressure. Hasan made clear that the legal process must transparently reveal the facts, and the public is urged to patiently await the outcome. In a healthy democracy, such a statement is not merely rhetoric but a form of political accountability that gives full space to the judiciary.
It is also important to recognize that the mention of Budi Arie’s name in the indictment does not automatically imply his direct involvement or role in the crime. In criminal law, being named in an indictment does not equate to suspect status, let alone that of a defendant. Therefore, the public must distinguish between legal facts and circulating opinions to prevent the formation of disproportionate social stigma. In this regard, the government has taken a firm position: observing carefully, remaining neutral, and leaving the matter entirely to the applicable legal process.
The government’s consistent distancing from the ongoing legal process also underscores that no individual in the country is above the law. Conversely, no one should be punished simply due to public perception. This highlights that Indonesian democracy is evolving into a more mature form, where legal transparency is no longer used as a political tool but as a means of objectively seeking the truth.
Hasan Nasbi also clarified that, to date, no formal legal process has been officially directed at Minister Budi Arie. This means that his legal status remains unchanged, and there is no basis for premature conclusions. In a fair legal system, verification, examination, and evidence must serve as the primary reference in addressing any case. In this context, the government grants full authority to prosecutors and courts to carry out their duties in accordance with their constitutional powers.
Moreover, the Palace’s determination not to interfere in this legal case reflects the ongoing bureaucratic reform. The government acknowledges that executive power has limits and must not encroach upon the judicial domain. In practice, this shows that inter-institutional relations in Indonesia are beginning to operate within a healthy system of checks and balances. Amid political pressures, the government has chosen the constitutional legal route and avoided maneuvers that could create perceptions of legal politicization.
This step also sends a positive message to both the public and the international community that Indonesia is committed to upholding the rule of law. In an increasingly transparent global order, where good governance is a critical demand, such a commitment is essential for strengthening the nation’s reputation. Investor confidence, business partnerships, and international cooperation are all built on the assurance that Indonesia’s legal system operates fairly and without discrimination.
It is equally important to note that respecting the legal process does not equate to ignoring social dynamics. The government continues to monitor developments, listen to public concerns, and stands ready to act according to constitutional principles when necessary. However, as long as no final court decision has been made, every individual’s position must be safeguarded within a fair and balanced legal framework. In this way, public trust in law enforcement institutions can be maintained, and democracy can continue to be practiced based on law rather than emotion.
Overall, the Palace’s approach in handling this case sets a good example of governance grounded in legal principles and political ethics. The government has shown that integrity is not merely spoken but demonstrated through concrete actions—even when dealing with sensitive situations. Amid the flood of information and sometimes uncontrolled public opinion, the government’s decision to respect the legal process deserves appreciation and can serve as a reference for handling similar cases in the future.
*) The author is a Public Policy Analyst
