---

The preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law (KPK Law), Monday (14/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Although it has not been enacted and received a number yet, the Law on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law) was petitioned again at the Constitutional Court. This time 25 advocates petitioned it against the 1945 on Monday (14/10/2019). The case No. 59/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Sunariyo, Netrawati, Rosyidah Setiani, Wiwin Taswin, and others.

Petitioner Wiwin Taswin argued that Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a of the KPK Law contradicts Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 20 of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioners, the ratification of the KPK Law by the House of Representatives (DPR) is not in accordance with the spirit of MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) Decree Number XI/MPR/1998 concerning clean State Administration that is free of corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN) and in no way reflects the spirit of corruption eradication. Therefore, they added, the amendment to the KPK Law is not in accordance with the eradication of corruption in the state administration.

In addition, the Petitioners also considered that the formation of and decision making by the House over the amendment to the KPK Law was formally flawed and did not meet the quorum. "Thus, the formation of the amendment to the KPK Law significantly violates the principle of the formation of legislation as regulated in Law Number 12 of 2011," explained Wiwin, who is also a graduate student of the As-Syafi\'iyah Islamic University, before a session led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Enny Nurbaningsih on the bench. 

Interfering with KPK’s Independence 

In addition, the Petitioners argued that the KPK is an independent state institution, so there is a guarantee of prosecution and prevention of corruption without intervention. Therefore, prosecution and prevention of corruption can be done accordingly. The amendment to the KPK Law created the a supervisory board regulated in Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a, which reads, “The Corruption Eradication Commission shall consist of: a. The Supervisory Board consisting of 5 (five) people." This board potentially interferes with the KPK’s independence in carrying out its duties and functions, which could lead to subpar prosecution and prevention of corruption and even more widespread corruption in Indonesia.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the constitutional justices declare the Law on the Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission not fulfilling formal procedure and mechanism for the formation of statutory regulations as regulated in Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of Legislation and must be declared null and void.

Constitutional Harm

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin said that related to the legal standing of the Petitioners, they must explain their qualifications as students and advocates and show their advocate license card. This is important as evidence that the Petitioners’ constitutional rights have been violated and that they are entitled to file the a quo petition. Specifically for formal review, the Petitioners are expected to describe the specific and potential losses they suffered. 

The law has not received a number, so the Petitioners must observe the procedure and formulation of a bill of law. This will serve as guidelines as the a quo law has not been promulgated and 30 days has not passed since it is first passed, therefore it has not been issued in the State Gazette.

Lacking Object 

Constitutional Justice Enny said that the law has not received a number, making the petition lacking object. Therefore, she added, the justices could not give their recommendations on the norm being petitioned. In addition, Justice Enny stated that the Petitioners must also ensure and be consistent with the matter to be reviewed, whether formally or materially or both, given that the provision of Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a of the KPK Law indicates that the matter in question is the material of the a quo law. "So, [decide] whether to submit [a petition] formally or materially or formally and materially," she asked.

Before closing the session, Justice Anwar reminded the Petitioners that they would have 14 working days to revise the petition and to submit it by Monday, October 28, 2019 at 10:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---