Ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, Wednesday (23/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review petition of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption filed by the Pertamina United Workers Union Federation. The Decision No. 32/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto on Wednesday (23/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. “The verdict adjudicated, declares the entire petition rejected,” said Justice Aswanto next to the other six constitutional justices.

Chairman Arie Gumilar and secretary general Dicky Firmansyah of the Pertamina United Workers Union Federation as Petitioners questioned the phrase "Anyone" and "detrimental to the finances of the state or the economy of the state" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law. They requested that SOE officials, especially Pertamina, cannot be subject to criminal sanctions if they take actions that could harm state finances. 

The Court was of the opinion that the interpretation that the Petitioners had requested for the phrase "Anyone" and "detrimental to the finances of the state or the economy of the state" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law had been in accordance with the meaning of the Anti-Corruption Law, especially Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 in relation to SOEs in the form of limited company, public limited company, and public company. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the phrase "detrimental to the state finances or the economy of the state" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law did not at all contain legal uncertainty as argued by the Petitioners because the management of state finances that are separated and managed by SOEs is subject to the provisions of the management of the company and/or limited liability company regulated in the BUMN Law and the PT Law.

Justice Enny said that as long as the management of corporate activities is carried out in good faith and there is no moral hazard, if there is an alleged crime, the law enforcement process evaluates whether SOE officials/employees commit acts against the law as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law. 

"The Petitioners\\' argument regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Law along the [word] \\'everyone\\' is not interpreted as \\'excluding officials/employees of a state-owned enterprise that in good faith carry out corporate activities in order to achieve the objectives of the state-owned enterprise in question\\', and along the phrase \\'detrimental to the state finances or the economy of the state\\' is not interpreted as \\'excluding company losses due to good faith in carrying out corporate activities for the achievement of the objectives of the state-owned enterprise in question\\' is groundless according to law," she said. (Utami/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti