---

The Petitioners’ legal counsel Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak (center) reading out the subject of the petition in the preliminary material review hearing of the Law on the Corruption Eradication Commission, Monday (30/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The newly-revised Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law was challenged for material review by 18 students of several universities on Monday (30/9/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The petition No. 57/PUU-XVI/2019 was filed by Muhammad Raditio Jati Utomo, Deddy Rizaldy Arwin Gommo, Putrida Sihombing, and others.

In the hearing presided over by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Enny Nurbaningsih, the Petitioners, represented by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak, challenged the amendment to the KPK Law that was passed on September 17, 2019 that they deemed having tried to break the spirit of the KPK as an institution specifically designed to deal with corruption cases and jeopardized corruption eradication in Indonesia. He added that corruption is a chronic problem in a democratic society. "Corruption is a dangerous plague that has enormous damaging effects on society," Zico said before the justices.

According to the Petitioner, the prevention and eradication of corruption is in the public interest. A contrario, every effort to weaken the eradication of corruption means threat against the people and a violation of constitutional rights. Therefore, in the a quo case, the Petitioners as individual citizens have an interest that was harmed by the KPK Law, which could have been prevented if the principles of establishing good laws had been met. 

In addition, there is a void in the Law No. 30/2002 concerning the KPK Law related to the enforcement of the requirements for KPK members as stipulated in Article 29 of the a quo Law. However, currently there is no remedy for the violation of those requirements. Therefore, the Petitioners are of the opinion that the election of Firly Bahuri as the KPK Chairman did not meet the requirements, whether the allegations against Firly are true or not. 

According to Zico, there should be a mechanism or legal remedy through the court regarding this matter, in order to eliminate slander or division in society, for both the people who support Firly and those who are against his appointment. The Petitioners request that the Constitutional Court protect the constitutional rights of the Petitioners in the a quo case, in relation to the election of KPK leaders, by ensuring new norms to cover up the vacuum of existing norms and provide fair legal protection for the Petitioners. 

The petitioners also requested that the Constitutional Court order the Parliament and the President to dismiss KPK members\' appointment. They believe that the formation of the a quo Law ignored the basic principles of the formation of good laws and regulations as stipulated in Article 5 of Law Number 12/2011 concerning the Formation of Laws and Regulations regarding transparency. Based on the transparency principle, the community should be involved through public consultation as regulated in Article 188 paragraph 1-3 of the Presidential Regulation No. 87 of 2014 concerning the Formation of Laws and Regulations, starting from preparing the bill, discussing the bill, to implementing the law. This principle was not met, given the sudden decision of the revision and the closed, hasty discussion. Instead of first involving the people, lawmakers ratified the a quo law despite outright rejection by the people. "Based on all the [above] arguments, the Petitioners request that the Constitutional Court declare the formation of the KPK Law not meeting the provision of the formation of a law based on the 1945 Constitution and not having binding legal force," he said.

 Justice’s Advice

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised that the Petitioners\' constitutional loss be clearly explained. She also said there must be certainty in petitioning a judicial review. 

“What is petitioned? There must be certainty, which law is being petitioned to the Constitutional Court? After all, it is impossible for the Constitutional Court to decide on a ruling [without certainty]. There must be certainty [about] what the legal standing. So, there must be certainty," she said to the Petitioners. She also advised that the petition be better rearranged.

The Court gave the Petitioners 14 working days to revise the petition. The next session was scheduled to review the revision of the petition. (Utami/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---