The Constitutional Court conducted a initial trial for case on Dispute over State Bodies Authorities (SKLN) between the Bank Indonesia (BI) and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Thursday (21/02), at the Panel Court Room of the Constitutional Court, with the agenda of Initial Examination.
The case was filed by BI represented by the Governor, Dr. Ir. Burhanudin Abdullah,M.A. with the calling made by KPK for him on November 22, 2007 as the background and on January 3, 2008 without approval from the President. ââ¬ÅUp to this moment there is no permission for examination from the President. Meanwhile according to the Article 49 of the Act No. 3 Year 2004, calling, information inquiries, and investigation on the Governor of BI suspected to have committed crime should at first attain written approval from the President,ââ¬Â explained BIââ¬â¢s Legal Counsel, Aa Dani Saliswijaya regarding the points of the Petitioner.
The written approval from the President was needed considering the importance of the role of the members of the Governor Board of BI in the economy of Indonesia, especially related to BIââ¬â¢s tasks and authorities in monetary, financing system, and the bank regulation and surveilance. Besides that, the approval was needed considering the independency of BI as a central bank regulated by Law. Yet, the regulation on the approval of the President was against the authorities of KPK as mentioned in Article 46 Paragraph (1) of Act No. 30 Year 2002 which surpasses many existing special procedures in the effort of examining corruption caseââ¬â¢s suspects.
Because of that BI pleaded the Constitutional Court to state Article 49 of Act No. 23 Year 1999 on BI as ammended by Act No. 3 Year 2004 still exists and binds; state that Article 46 Paragraph (1) of Act No. 30 Year 2002 on KPK is against Article 49 of Act No. 3 Year 2004 on the Ammendment of Act Nomor 23 Tahun 1999 on BI; state that the Petitionerââ¬â¢s authorities resulted from Article 46 paragraph (1) of Act No. 30 Year 2002 are invalid and do not have a binding legal power; and state that the KPK authority to call, inquire information, and investigate a member of Governor Board of BI should be conducted by a written permission from the President.
Responding to the Petition from BI, a Constitution Justice Abdul Mukhtie Fadjar and Soedarsono demanded a clarification on which of the BIââ¬â¢s authorities that was against the KPK authorities. ââ¬ÅWe donââ¬â¢t see a dispute over authorities here, what we have is a dispute of one Act (Act of BI ââ¬â ed.) and another (Act of KPK ââ¬â ed.) . the Constitutional Court do not have the authority to exercise an act on another act. The authority of the Constitutional Court is to exercise an Act towards the 1945 Constitution,ââ¬Â explained Constitution Justice Prof. Abdul Mukhtie Fadjar, S.H., M.S.
Hence, he continued, there were two choices for filing the case that could be taken by BI, they were to file a Dispute Over State Bodies Authorities by emphasising which of the BIââ¬â¢s authorities had been tricked by KPK or filing a Trial for Act by explaining what constitutional loss that BI experienced due to the existence of the Act. Therefore, before closing the trial, Constitutional Justice Maruarar Siahaan S.H. advised BI to study the content of Article 61 of Act on Constitutional Court on SKLN case also to study the Constitutional Courtââ¬â¢s Verdicts on Act of KPK also the Regulation of the Constitutional Court regarding the SKLN case. (Kencana Suluh Hikmah / Yogi Djatnika)
Thursday, February 21, 2008 | 16:16 WIB 276