BALINEWSID.COM, JAKARTA – Defendant Gamaginta, who is facing corruption charges related to financing facilities at the Indonesian Eximbank (Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia/LPEI), formally submitted an objection (eksepsi) to the prosecution’s indictment before the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on Tuesday (June 2, 2026).

During the hearing in Case No. 25/Pid.Sus-TPK/2026/PN.Jkt.Pst, Gamaginta’s legal team from MTK Indonesia Lawfirm argued that the indictment filed by public prosecutors was legally flawed, vague, and failed to meet both formal and material requirements stipulated under Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

The defense team, consisting of Prof. Dr. Werdhi Sutisari, Irsan Muharam, Muhammad Fauzan Fadilah, and Hendra Laksmana, maintained that the case fundamentally stems from a business and civil dispute arising from contractual financing agreements between LPEI and debtors PT Tebo Indah and PT Pratama Agro Sawit.

According to the defense, the legal relationship between LPEI and the debtors was established through legitimate financing agreements governed by civil law principles. They cited the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda under Article 1338 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Civil Code, which stipulates that legally executed agreements are binding upon the parties as law.

“The relationship between LPEI and the debtors originated from financing agreements subject to civil law. Any failure to fulfill contractual obligations should, in principle, be resolved through civil remedies for breach of contract, unless there is evidence from the outset of fraud, abuse of authority, or unlawful conduct constituting a criminal offense,” the defense stated before the court.

The lawyers emphasized that all financing processes were carried out through valid financing contracts, risk assessments, collateral arrangements, and institutional decision-making mechanisms involving various departments and committees within LPEI.

“This matter is more appropriately addressed within the framework of business law, civil law, and institutional governance, rather than as a corruption offense,” the defense argued.

The legal team also highlighted that Gamaginta only assumed the position of Head of LPEI’s Sharia Department I in January 2017 and resigned effective August 1, 2018. Meanwhile, the initial financing process for the debtors reportedly began in 2015.

Based on these facts, the defense argued that prosecutors had improperly attributed responsibility to Gamaginta for events occurring both before he assumed office and after he left the institution.

In their objection filing, the defense further contended that prosecutors illogically alleged that the defendant’s conduct continued even after his resignation from LPEI.

The defense also challenged the use of an audit conducted by the Finance and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) as the basis for calculating alleged state losses amounting to Rp992.82 billion.

Referring to Constitutional Court Decision No. 28/PUU-XXIV/2026, the defense argued that the constitutional authority to determine and calculate state financial losses rests with the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), making the prosecution’s reliance on the BPKP audit legally questionable.

Additionally, the lawyers asserted that the indictment failed to clearly describe the defendant’s specific actions, any causal link between those actions and alleged state losses, personal benefits obtained by the defendant, or evidence of criminal intent required to establish criminal liability.

They argued that prosecutors merely generalized Gamaginta’s position as a structural official without explaining his actual authority, veto powers, or the collective decision-making mechanisms within LPEI.

The defense also cited Supreme Court Decision No. 1265 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024, which upheld a court-approved settlement agreement (homologation) between LPEI and the debtors. According to the defense, the debt settlement process remains ongoing through civil mechanisms, making it premature to conclude that a definite and actual state loss has occurred.

Based on these arguments, the defense requested that the panel of judges declare the court incompetent to hear the case on the grounds that it constitutes a civil dispute. They also sought a ruling declaring the indictment null and void, or at least inadmissible, and requested Gamaginta’s release from detention.

Meanwhile, prosecutors charged Gamaginta under Article 603 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 18 of Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Law as the primary charge, and alternatively under Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law, alleging irregularities in financing facilities that resulted in state financial losses.

The panel of judges at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court is expected to review the defense’s objection before issuing an interlocutory ruling that will determine whether the trial proceeds to the next stage.