University Graduate Qualification for the Post of Anti-Corruption Commission Chief is Being Reviewed

            The Constitutional Court held a judicial review on Article 29 of Law Number 30 of 2002 regarding Corruption Eradication Commission on Tueday, July 24, 2007 at 10.00 West Indoneia Time at the courtroom of the Constitutional Court, at Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No. 7 Central Jakarta. The panel hearing was scheduled for Preliminary Examination and was presided over by I Dewa Gede Palguna as the Chairperson of the Panel, H. Achmad Roestandi and Maruarar Siahaan as members.  


            The petition is filed by Ravavi Wilson, who is of  the opinion that the provision of Article 29 of Law No. 30 of 2002 poses a limitation for people who do not have any university degree to become candidates for the Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption Commission (KPK). The petitioner’s reason for filing a apetion for judicial review of Article 29 of the KPK Law is because the Article poses legal discrimination and incurs legal uncertainty as to the capabilitry of candidates who do not have university degree. Whereas actually, according to the Petitioner, there are a large number of leaders in this country who do not have any university degree but they can be relied on for advancing this country. The petitioner, who is currently applying for the post of the Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption Commission, feels that his move has been hampered by the provision set forth in Article 29 of Law Number 30 of 2002 stating that candidates for the chairperson of the Anti-Corruption Commission must have a university degree. In the petitum, the Petitioner asks the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 29 of Law No.30 of 2002 is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and does not have any binding legal power.


            The Chairperson of the Panel, I Dewa Gede Palguna gave an advice to the Petitioner to revise his petition so that it would be more focused on the underlying reasons of his petition. Constitutional Justice H. Achmad Roestandi and Maruarar Siahaan also gave a suggestion to the Petitioner to revise his petition. Before adjourning the hearing on this case number 019/PUU-V/2007, the Chairperson of the Panel I Dewa Gede Palguna added that the Petitioner must enclose a list of evidence so that the panel can easily examine the evidence and make a report to the Plennary Meeting of the Constitutional Court.(Prana Patrayoga Adiputra)


Tuesday, July 24, 2007 | 15:39 WIB 236