KPK Chairman Could Not Be Dismissed Without Permanent Court Ruling
Image

Two inactive leaders of KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission), Bibit S. Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah, Petitioners in the review of Act on KPK being congratulated by their legal counsels after the decision reading session in The Court Room, Wednesday (25/11). (Doc. CCRI/Ardli Nuryadi)


Jakarta-MKOnline, The plea from Bibit S. Rianto dan Chandra M. Hamzah was finally granted partially by the Constitutional Court (The Court). That was announced in the decision reading session in The Court Plenary Room on Wednesday (25/11). The decision awaited by public was read by all nine Justices in turn.

In the verdict, The Court gave an understanding for the stipulation in Article 32 paragraph (1) letter c of Act Number 30 of 2002 about Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) would be unconstitutional but to follow the meaning provided by The Court.

“Article 32 paragraph (1) letter c of Act Number 30 of 2002 about Corruption Eradication Commission is conditionally unconstitutional, except that it should be interpreted as “Leaders of KPK resign or are dismissed after given a criminal sentence by court ruling with permanent legal power,” that was the verdict read by Chief Justice of The Court, Moh. Mahfud MD.

In the legal opinions, The Court considered the stipulation within Article 32 paragraph (1) letter c potentially damaged the Petitioners because it could be used to manipulate the leaders to be the accused party. That was supported by one of the evidence submitted by the Petitioners, a tapped recording done by KPK towards Anggodo Widjaya, a brother of a corruption suspect Anggoro Widjaya. The leading evidence showed the malicious discourse for criminalizing the Petitioners by Anggodo and the investigators.

The Court also considered that the stipulation was discriminative and violated the presumption of innocence before the law as it only applied to the leaders of the KPK and not for other positions.

In this decision Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim had a concurring opinion; he fundamentally agreed to the substance of the decision but with different legal opinion. (Feri Amsari/YDJ tr.)


Thursday, November 26, 2009 | 07:02 WIB 208