---

House Commission III member Arteria Dahlan giving a statement on behalf of the House in the judicial review hearing of the KPK Law, Tuesday (19/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The House of Representatives (DPR) emphasized that the procedure for drafting the Prolegnas (National Legislative Program) is based on House Regulation No. 1 of 2014. The inclusion of the second amendment to the KPK Law in the Prolegnas had fulfilled the requirements for entry into the open cumulative list of the Prolegnas. As a result, under certain circumstances the House, DPD (Regional Representatives Council), and the President can propose a draft bill outside of the Prolegnas.

This was conveyed by House Commission III member Arteria Dahlanin the judicial review hearing of the Law on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law) on Tuesday (19/11/2019). The third session of case No. 59/PUU-XVII/2019 was led by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman in the Plenary Courtroom.

In the statement, Arteria said that in the report on the inquiry right committee, several problems were found within the KPK in terms of institution, human resource management, financial management, and case management. Lawmakers considered the Constitutional Court\'s decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 and issues in the KPK in the report of the inquiry right committee as a national urgency that shows that corruption eradication by the KPK was still non-optimal.

"Therefore, the submission of the Prolegnas, which has been approved by the House\'s Legislation Body (Baleg) [and] then approved by the Minister of Law and Human Rights (Menkumham), is legally valid based on Article 23 paragraph 2 letter b of Law Number 12 of 2011," he said.

Arteria added, the Petitioners’ opinion that the KPK Law revision did not go through the 2019 Prolegnas and was not proposed due to extraordinary events was inaccurate and not in accordance with actual facts.

Open and Transparent

Responding to the Petitioners’ opinion that the discussion of the second amendment to the KPK Bill was hidden and short, the House stressed that it was carried out openly and transparently the House plenary session, involving several parties, and in accordance with the provisions of the law and regulations and in accordance with the facts. Therefore, the Petitioners’ opinion was misleading. He also argued that the assumption that the revised KPK Law was formally defect was baseless.

House’s Initiative

On behalf of the Government, expert staff of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Agus Hariadi said the review of the a quo law was a revision initiated by the House, technically processed by the House’s apparatus. Only several articles were revised.

"The a quo bill was discussed both in level I and level II, which can be seen in the invitation to the discussion meeting of the bill on the second amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the eradicating of criminal acts of corruption," said Agus.

Responding to the argument that the KPK Law revision has a procedural defect, the Government stated that Indonesia\'s foundation in the formation of laws was philosophically based on the principle of legality as a function of the implementation of the rule of law. The principle of legality states that a bill of law is discussed by the House of Representatives and the President to obtain approval.

"If it had been considered to be procedurally flawed in the discussion and approval, of course there would have been rejection either by the president or his representative or by the House factions in the forum. Thus, the object of discussion would not have been decided," Agus stressed. He emphasized that the revision had followed the existing process and procedure of lawmaking and it had been included in the Prolegnas.

In the previous session, 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. (Utami/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---