Advocate Junaedi Saibih Acquitted of Obstruction Charges
The **Central Jakarta Corruption Court (Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Jakarta Pusat)**, also known as the **Tipikor Court**, acquitted lawyer and academic **Junaedi Saibih** of bribery charges related to a verdict of release in the crude palm oil (CPO) corruption case. He was also cleared of allegations of **obstruction of justice**.
“Declaring that the defendant, Junaedi Saibih, has not been legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing the criminal acts as charged,” said presiding judge **Effendi** while reading the verdict in the early hours of Wednesday, March 4, 2026.
The panel of judges also ordered Junaedi to be released from detention following the pronouncement of the verdict. In addition, the court restored the defendant’s rights in terms of capacity, position, dignity, and honor.
In the bribery case, Junaedi Saibih had previously been demanded by prosecutors to serve **9 years in prison**, along with a **fine of Rp600 million**, subsidiary to **150 days of imprisonment**. Prosecutors accused him of bribing judges by designing a legal strategy for the defense of his client, which they argued constituted obstruction of justice.
Judges’ Considerations
The spokesperson of the **Central Jakarta District Court**, **Sunoto**, explained the judges’ considerations in acquitting Junaedi Saibih. In the bribery case, the panel examined **30 witnesses, experts, electronic evidence, and verbalisan witnesses** during the trial. However, no evidence was found indicating that the defendant knew about, let alone participated in, the alleged bribery.
“The legal defense strategy prepared by the defendant together with witness **Marcella Santoso** cannot automatically be equated with a criminal conspiracy to bribe judges,” Sunoto stated in a written statement.
He further referred to **Law No. 18 of 2003**, which regulates the main duties of advocates, namely providing legal defense services to their clients, including preparing legal strategies through lawful measures. “A defense strategy carried out within the corridor of the law does not possess an unlawful nature.”
Additionally, the judges considered that the legal service fees received by **Ariyanto Arnaldo Law Firm** from its clients (**Wilmar Group, Permata Hijau Group, and Musim Mas Group**) constituted lawful income. The payments were transparently reported and managed in an accountable manner, and therefore could not be qualified as part of a bribery scheme.
Regarding the **obstruction of justice** allegation, the panel referred to **Constitutional Court Decision No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025** as the constitutional basis. The Constitutional Court removed the phrase **“directly or indirectly”** from Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law, meaning that obstruction must be carried out consciously and actively.
In criminal law, the doctrine of **causality (conditio sine qua non)** is recognized, which essentially states that the determination of criminal liability must prove a real **cause-and-effect relationship (causal verband)** between the defendant’s actions and the consequences prohibited by law. Furthermore, the perpetrator must have fault at the time the act was committed.
“The panel of judges did not find the intended causal verband in the defendant’s actions,” Sunoto said.
He explained that the legal defense scheme, which included filing lawsuits with the **State Administrative Court (PTUN)** and civil lawsuits, constituted legitimate legal remedies as guaranteed under **Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration** and the **Indonesian Civil Code**. As long as such legal actions are carried out in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, they do not possess an unlawful character as meant in the element **“intentionally preventing, obstructing, or thwarting directly or indirectly”** under Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law.
The panel also referred to the principle of **presumption of innocence**, which grants every witness, suspect, and defendant the right to defend themselves openly when there is an assumption of guilt that harms their reputation. Therefore, every advocate has the right to clarify media reports regarding their clients through lawful means, including holding academic discussions as conducted by Junaedi Saibih.
Furthermore, the judges noted that Junaedi organized the **Jakarta Justice Forum** discussion at the **University of Indonesia** concerning the case he handled in his capacity as an academic. The activity never received any objection from the University of Indonesia’s rectorate.
It is not within the authority of the panel of judges to assess whether the activity contained a conflict of interest or violated academic ethics, as this falls within the realm of **academic freedom**, which is the authority of educational institutions. According to the judges, such activities constitute **non-litigation advocacy** guaranteed by the **Advocates Law** and the **Indonesian Advocates’ Code of Ethics**.
Junaedi’s profession as both an advocate and an academic has never been questioned by advocate organizations or by the **Faculty of Law at the University of Indonesia**. Therefore, it was not relevant for the panel to further assess whether a conflict of interest existed.