Constitutional Court researcher Helmi Kasim welcoming students of the Indonesian Muslim University (UMI) Makassar, Wednesday (7/2). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The relationship between the Constitutional Court (MK) and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was an interesting topic when 18 students of the Indonesian Muslim University (UMI) Makassar visited the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (7/2/2018).

Opening the discussion, Court researcher Helmi Kasim discussed the notion that the Constitutional Court’s decisions benefited perpetrators of corruption. According to Helmi, the Constitutional Court’s decisions on this issue could not be seen only in black and white. He emphasized that the Constitutional Court and the KPK had different functions and roles so that the Constitutional Court’s partiality could not be assessed against the corruption eradication carried out by the KPK.

"The Court is a judicial institution while the KPK prosecutes and fight corruption. When deciding on a case, the Constitutional Court’s position was to [take the stance of] the Constitution. For example, if there is a law that is not in accordance with the Constitution, the Court will annul it. So, the Constitutional Court has nothing to do with the KPK," Helmi explained.

Helmi pointed out that the provisions on Corruption (Tipikor) were originally in the KPK Law, but the Court decided that the Corruption Law must be regulated in a separate law. This, he added, shows that the Constitutional Court’s decisions do not always weaken the KPK, so it is inaccurate to say that that the Constitutional Court is not pro corruption eradication.

Helmi said that the corruption case involving the Constitutional Court was a personal matter outside of the organization. "Institutionally [the Constitutional Court] is strong," he said. The Court had immediately dealt with the issue. The Court is also transparent and cooperative with law enforcement.

Helmi also explained four authorities and one obligation of the Constitutional Court. The authorities are examining laws against the 1945 Constitution, deciding on authority dispute among state institutions, deciding on the dissolution of political parties, and deciding on disputes over election results. The Court is also obligated to decide on the House’s opinion on an alleged violation of law committed by the president and/or vice president. (ARS/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti