The applicant, represented by Saifuddin Ahmad Firdaus (middle), during stating his pleads in the initial session of judicial review on Law on Corruption Eradication Commission, Thursday (26/02) at the Constitutional Court’s Plenary Room.

The provisions on the Law No. 30/2002 on The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law), which regulated temporary dismissal of suspended KPK commissioners, were challenged its constitutionality to the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) filed by a group of citizens named Forum of Legal and Constitutional Review (Forum Kajian Hukum dan Konstitusi—FKHK).

In the Thursday preliminary session (26/02), led by Constitutional Court judge I Dewa Gede Palguna, the applicant –on the Case No.25/PUU-XIII/2015— argued that Article 32 paragraph (2) of KPK Law noted: "In case a KPK Commissioner become suspected in crimes, he shall suspended from his post," had caused legal uncertainty. The applicant considered that the provision contradicted with the definition of a suspect noted in The Criminal Code Procedures (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana – KUHAP)

According to the applicant, the Article arose legal uncertainty that guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of The 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 –UUD 45). The applicant also compared the rules applied to the KPK law enforcer with other law enforcer agencies, particularly the police. According to the applicant, the comparison can be seen in Law No. 2 Year 2002 on the Indonesian National Police Law and Attorney Law, in which there was no regulated dismissal if the Chief Police got suspended.

In addition, the applicant also argued that the provision in Article 32 paragraph (2) KPK Law resulted on KPK commissioners were easily dismissed by the President with the suspect-naming made only by the Police. "With its provision, a KPK commissioner can be easily dismissed simply because of suspected on mediocre cases" said Viktor, representing FKHK. He said that it would hamper KPK work on eradicating corruption. With those arguments, the applicant filed to the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 32 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi—KPK) was contrary to The 1945 Constitution.

Towards the petition, the Constitutional judges I Dewa Gede Palguna, who led the session had given advice to the applicant, which was viewed the applicant\\'s legal standing because it was the opportunity for the applicant whether the case could be continued or not. Additionally, Palguna said, the applicant must also able to explain the applicant\\'s qualifications and their constitutional disadvantages caused by the enactment of the provision. Palguna asked the applicant to be careful on outlining the legal position in this case. Furthermore, former member of the Ad Hoc Committee I of the People\\'s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat—MPR) was also asked the applicant to focus on the Law that being tested. According to Palguna, the point presented by the applicant is a provocation so that constitutional judges believe on argument told by the applicant; therefore, the request should be good. "Here is your chance to build a theory," said Palguna.

Similar argument also stated by the Constitutional Court judge, Suhartoyo. According to him who once had became Higher Judge in the Denpasar High Court (Pengadilan Tinggi Denpasar), applicant must be able to understand the reason of the Police and the Attorney that although bound by the Civil Service Act, but did not equally regulated as the KPK commissioners. Suhartoyo also reminded the applicant regarding the exceptional functionality of KPK, so if there were any tolerance for crime committed by the KPK commissioners, it would be counter-productive.

Meanwhile the Constitutional judge, Aswanto provided advice to the applicant to distinguish the definition of suspects and defendants. Aswanto—who also a Professor of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Hasanuddin—was stated that he had known the intention of the applicant, that the Article had the potential to disrupt KPK work, so KPK commissioners could easily named suspect and dismissed by the President. However, Aswanto asked the applicant to be able to elaborate the argument clearly, especially related to the applicant\\\'s legal position, so that the judge panel convinced with the request.

With the advices given, the applicant had no later than 14 days to make and submit their revised request.(Ilham/Prasetyo Adi N)