The Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi –KPK)  denies constitutional loss suffered by Otto Cornelis Kaligis regarding provision on detention suspension, because the commission never receives his detention suspension lawsuit, Commission’s Head of Justice Bureau Setiadi (Kepala Biro Hukum KPK) delivers testimony at judicial review on Act Number 30 Year 2002 of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Undang-Undang Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi –UU KPK), on Tuesday (13/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

“Applicant’s judicial review petition regarding Article 46 (2) Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission is not consistent with legal fact; the Applicant never file detention suspension lawsuit during investigation process conducted by the KPK. It proves that the Applicant never suffer constitutional loss as argued,” explained him in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

As Related Party, the KPK also asserts that detention suspension is fully authorized by investigators, prosecutors, and justices as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP). However, the KUHAP provides regulation that limit reasons on detention suspension; the reasons among others shall be from the perspective of public interest and public order by sociological approach, psychological approach, corrective approach, and educative approach. Setiadi further says detention suspension given to murders, drug dealers, smugglers, or corruptors contrary to public interest and public order.

“From sociological and psychological approach, detention suspension on such criminal offense is contrary to preventive, corrective, and educative purpose. Thus, detention suspension authority shall not only based on determined requirement and guarantee, but also shall examine and consider deeply on broader aspects,” said Setiaidi.

Representing the Government, Justice and Human Rights Ministry’s legislation litigation directorate general director (Direktur Litigasi Peraturan Perundang-undangan Kementerian Hukum dan HAM) Nasrudin asserts that Applicant’s petition relates with norm implementation matter, rather than with norm constitutionality. Moreover, the Government explains that the Applicant has been given their rights as suspect. “According to the Government, suspect’s rights have been given to the Applicant as stipulated in Article 59, which stated suspects or defendants entitled to informed on their detention by authorized officials in entire level of examination in court proceedings,” said him.

The Applicant is defendant of Medan state administrative justice bribery case. He considers his constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Article 46 (2) Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission, which stated ‘Suspect examination as referred in paragraph (1) is conducted without prejudice to suspect’s rights’ (‘Pemeriksaan tersangka sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1), dilakukan dengan tidak mengurangi hak-hak tersangka’). The Applicant assesses Article 46 (2) Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission aimed at suspect’s rights protection. However, he further says, the provision doesn’t elaborate further on suspect’s rights as stipulated in Act Number 8 Year 1981 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

According to the Applicant, Indonesia as law state shall provide constitutional rights protection to suspects. The Applicant argues Article 46 (2) Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission potentially reduce suspect’s rights because the Article could be interpreted broadly for political interest. The Applicant also considers such provision contrary to Article 28D (1) the 1945 Constitution if it isn’t interpreted including suspect’s rights stipulated in Article 31 (1) juncto Article 59 the KUHAP, particularly regarding rights to file detention suspension. He considers such provision doesn’t guarantee legal certainty. (Lulu Anjarsari/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)