The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject the former PLN president director Eddie Widiono Suwondho for all. Decision by Number 31/PUU-X/2012 was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. He was assisted by other constitutional judges on Tuesday (23/10).

"Passing, stated in the provision, rejected the provisional applicant. the merits of the case, rejected the petition to all, "said Mahfud.

In the opinion of the Court that the Constitution was read by Judge Anwar Usman, Petitioner essentially argues that the provisions of Article 6 letter a and Explanation of Article 6 of the Law Commission give rise to legal uncertainty, because the Commission can use BPKP LHPKKN made by the state in determining losses and started an investigation, while according Petitioner, LHPKKN is not the authority of the BPKP.

Norma tested by the applicant, namely Article 6 letter a and Explanation of Article 6 of the Law Commission set about the task of the Commission to coordinate with the relevant authorities to combat corruption. The scope and nature of corruption related to the concept of "state financial harm" related to the abuse of power, opportunity or means acceptable for office or official position of the government is strongly associated with the implementation of governmental power. Therefore, coordination with other agencies is essential.

"According to the Court, the task of coordination is a task that should be owned by the Commission in order to carry out the effectiveness of the eradication of corruption, so that the function cannot be regarded as contrary to the constitution. In several decisions the Court has stated that the existence of the Commission with all the functions and authority is constitutional, so any attempts to streamline the coordination of the functions and powers is constitutional," he explained.

Anwar continued that Article 47 paragraph (2) PP 60/2008 and Article 49 of Regulation 60/2008 is mentioned as one of the BPKP internal control apparatus of government, and one of the internal control that includes an investigative audit. CPC Authority under Article 23E Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and further regulated in Article 6 paragraph (1) of Law No. 15 Year 2006 on the BPK. Thus, the duties and authority of each agency as BPKP and CPC have been clearly set out in legislation, so that the duties and authority need not be mentioned further in the explanation of the Law Commission. "Therefore, according to the Court, the Commission not only to coordinate with BPKP and CPC in order to prove an offense of corruption, but it can also coordinate with other agencies, could even prove itself outside BPKP findings and CPC, for example by inviting experts or by request materials from the inspector general or body that has functions similar to those of the respective government agencies, even from other parties (including companies), which can show the accuracy of the calculation of the financial loss and / or be able to prove the case that being handled, "explained Anwar.

Furthermore, Anwar said constitutional argued by the applicant regarding the validity LPHKKN legitimate or not used by the Commission as a basis for establishing the investigation are the loss or potential loss that may occur due to the implementation of the enforcement or implementation of the norms of the Law Commission. Valid or not valid LPHKKN made and published by BPKP, said Anwar, not directly related to the constitutionality of the norms that govern the task Commission to coordinate with other agencies. 

"KPK as one of the corrupt judicial system has discretionary authority to request and use information about the activities of the eradication of corruption to the agency or other parties related to the purpose of investigation. Regarding proven or not proven loss to the state mentioned in LPHKKN not valid or legitimate LPHKKN remains the absolute authority of the judge who put him on trial. In other words, although the Commission has the discretionary authority to use information about the loss to the state in the form of LPHKKN BPKP or CPC in the investigation, whether or not such information is used in decision-making is the independence of the judge who tried the case," he explained.

Therefore, the apparent Anwar, according to the Court, the problems faced by the applicant is the domain of norm implementation, is not an issue of constitutionality of the norm. Mention BPKP agencies and other institutions in the Elucidation of Article 6 of the Law Commission without specifying and limiting the authority of each agency cannot be stated as provisions that create legal uncertainty. In addition, a petition wants the KPK is no longer allowed to coordinate with BPKP is inappropriate and contrary to the purpose of the establishment of the Commission, as it will weaken the execution of the functions and authority of the Commission, so that the Petitioners' argument must be declared unfounded. "Based on the considerations mentioned above, according to the Court, the petition regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 6 letter a and Explanation of Article 6 of the Law Commission was not unreasonable under the law," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)