Legal counsel Feri Amsari delivering the subjects of the petition in the judicial review of the Corruption Eradication Commission(KPK) Law, Monday (9/12) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The preliminary examination hearing of the formal review of Law Number 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (9/12/2019). The Petitioners of case No. 79/PUU-XVII/2019 are KPK Chairman Agus Rahardjo, Deputy Chairman Laode Muhamad Syarif, and Deputy Chairman Saut Situmorang. Through legal counsel Feri Amsari, the Petitioners argued that lawmakers did not show good faith in drafting the second amendment to the KPK Law, resulting in potential constitutional losses to citizens.

"Corruption is a common enemy of the nation that seems increasingly difficult to eradicate because it is an extraordinary crime that requires extraordinary efforts to eradicate," said Feri to the panel of justices consisting of Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat (chairman), Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Wahiduddin Adams (members). 

According to the Petitioners, the discussion of the KPK bill (RUU) took place quickly and in a hurry for approval. Therefore, they are of the view that it is a factor in the large number of formal defects and ambiguities in the KPK Law. In fact, legally, Article 50 paragraph (3) of Law No. 12/2011 explains that the House (DPR) began to discuss the bill as referred to in paragraph (1) within 60 (sixty) days since the President\'s letter was received. 

According to the Petitioners, it means, if the DPR and the President had expected comprehensive and responsive results from the changes in the KPK Law, 60 days could have been fully utilized by lawmakers, because every discussion of the bill could result in long debates between the House and the Government. However, the President and the House seemed hurried in approving the KPK bill. This policy is of course at odds with the principle of prudence and expediency in realizing good legislation. 

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra commented, "There is no need to have as many legal counsels. Apparently not too many are present; only a waste of time. Ensure who wants to dedicate their time to [this case]. There 39 legal counsels [listed] but only 6 or 7 are present, and some have not given their signatures. This is for your consideration. [Do not focus on] quantity but on quality," he said. 

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams observed that the petition was prepared well. "Especially since this is a special petition for formal review. The subject is formal review. It is clearly stated there," he said. 

Justice Wahiduddin the advised that the Petitioners elaborate the petitum and explaine their constitutional losses. "This is a petitum for formal review, so focus on that in the elaboration. In addition, the argument of the losses of the Petitioners and actual of the losses of each of the Petitioners must be specified," he said. 

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat examined the legal standing. "[Please] elaborate the legal standing of the principal petitioners one by one. Does each have constitutional rights that were violated or ignored by the enactment of this law? For example, Petitioner I is an individual Indonesian citizen who works as a civil servant, KPK Chairman. It is only his identity. It hasn\'t been shown to us yet why Mr. Agus Rahardjo\'s constitutional rights were violated? The same goes for Petitioner [II to] XIII," he said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti