Panel revision examination hearing of the judicial review of the Corruption Eradication Law (Anti-Corruption Law), Wednesday (6/2) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The second hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 31/1999 on Corruption Eradication was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (6/2/2019) afternoon. The hearing of case No. 4/PUU-XVII/2019 had been scheduled to examine the petition revision. The petition was filed by lecturer Jupri (Petitioner I) and university students Ade Putri Lestari (Petitioner II) and Oktav Dila Livia (Petitioner III). The Petitioners requested a judicial review of the Elucidation to Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law.

Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law reads, “In the event that corruption as referred to in paragraph (1) is committed under certain circumstances, capital punishment may be applied.” The Elucidation to this article reads, “Referred to as ‘certain condition’ in this provision is the condition that may serve as a reason for meting out heavier punishment to those embezzling funds earmarked for controlling states of emergency in accordance with existing laws, during national natural disasters, as repeat corruption offenses, or during economic and monetary crisis.”

“The revision to the petition is the addition of original intent. We have explored the original intent, searched for data at the House of Representatives on the transcripts of hearings in 1999. We did not obtain data on 2001 because we were not given any other document,” said legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa.

According to the Petitioners, after observing the original intent of Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law based on the data from the House, Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law on capital punishment for corruptors was much discussed. There were several statements by the Government on capital punishment for corruptors, for example, the Government stated that death sentence was accepted, but it remained part of aggravation.

The Petitioners explained that the Government maintained that capital punishment would apply to corruptors in special characteristic situations. For example, capital punishment would also apply to criminal offense done during natural disaster or state emergency.

The Petitioners highlighted the word "national" in the elucidation of the norm. According to them, the norm seemingly protected corruptors of natural disaster management funds as long as the status of the natural disaster was not declared a national natural disaster.  

In the petition, the Petitioners explained that after natural disaster in Palu and Donggala in 2018, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) discovered allegations of corruption in the project to procure high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes in the area. The Petitioners also explained other findings of alleged corruption in several drinking water supply system (SPAM) development projects. The Petitioners argued that by not declaring the natural disaster in Palu and Donggala a national disaster, Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law became unenforceable.  

According to the Petitioners, corruption should be categorized an extraordinary crime, even a crime against humanity, especially if done during natural disaster mitigation efforts. The Petitioners argued that the death penalty should be applied to corruptors in natural disasters, regardless of whether the disasters are declared national disasters or not. On that rationale, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare the word "national" after the phrase "natural disaster" in the Elucidation to Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)