Yudha Pandu as the attorney of the Petitioner when submitting the main points of the revision of judicial review petition of the KPK Law on Wednesday (13/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing to revise the petition for judicial review of Law No. 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law) on Wednesday (13/12) afternoon. Cases No. 95/PUU-XV/2017 and 96/PUU-XV/2017 were filed by Setya Novanto. 

At the hearing, the Petitioner represented by his legal counsel, Yudha Pandu, said that he had revised the petition according to the Panel\\\'s suggestion in the previous session. The Petitioner also revised the reasons for the Petitioner\\\'s constitutional harm and the petitum. 

"In the petitum, we state that the Petitioner has the legal standing in applying for the judicial review of Law No. 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission," Yudha told Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo as chairman of the hearing. 

In addition, in the petitum, the Petitioner declares that Article 46 Paragraph (1) of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law does not apply and is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution if in the investigation and process of investigation of members of DPR in a case of corruption. The Petitioner also states that Article 46 Paragraph (1) of the KPK Law does not have binding legal force against House members as long as there is no written permission from the President. 

The Petitioner petitioned Article 46 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law that reads, "Should an individual be suspected of committing a corrupt act by the KPK, since the date he/she is recorded to be a suspect, all special procedures that would apply under other laws concerning checks made on the suspect shall not apply under this law." In addition, they petitioned Article 46 paragraph (2) of the a quo law that reads, "The investigation of the suspect as outlined in paragraph (1) should be done without compromising the rights of the suspect."

On the provision of Article 46 of the KPK Law, the Petitioner reasoned that House (DPR) members have the right to immunity from the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Petitioner believes that Article 46 of the KPK Law is contradictory to the procedural law provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) because the provision ignores other provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the process of suspect investigation.

In addition, the provision is contradictory to Law No. 17/2014 on the People\\\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) (MD3 Law) stating that the investigation of House members suspected of committing a criminal offense must obtain a written permission from the President.

The Petitioner reasoned that the Court had also made Decision No. 76/PUU-XII/2014 dated September 22, 2015 on investigation or summon of House members by law enforcement requiring the permission of the President. Previously in the MD3 Law there was a requirement of the permission from the House’s ethics council (MKD). However, after the decision of the Constitutional Court, investigation must obtain permission from the President. 

The Petitioner is of the opinion that written permission from the President is required for a House member not to be criminalized in carrying out his/her duties and authorities. This is in accordance with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 73/PUU-IX/2011. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)