Petitioners following the revision session of the judicial review of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2012 on the Corruption Eradication Commission, Wednesday (8/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2012 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (8/1/2020). The panel consisted of Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman (chair) and Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Manahan M. P. Sitompul (members).

"Regarding the revision of our petition, as [per your recommendations] in the previous session, in essence there is not too much change. However, we’d like to add posita to strengthen the arguments of our petition," said Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, one of the Petitioners. 

The added posita mostly is related to the supervisory council in the Second Amendment to the KPK Law. For example, in point 6 at page 38, they added, "It is inevitable that a supervisory council can damage the principles of the rule of law stipulated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia...."

Jovi Andrea Bachtiar and eleven other petitioners challenge Article 12B paragraphs (2), (3), and (4); Article 12C paragraph (1); Article 21 paragraph (1); Article 37A paragraph (3); Article 37B paragraph (1) letter b; Article 47 paragraphs (1) and (2); and Article 69A paragraphs (1) and (4) of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2012 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

The Petitioners of case No. 77/PUU-XVII/2019 challenge the authority of the KPK supervisory council, whose position and recruitment they deem potentially violating the principle of rule of law and judicial independence.

The Petitioners also believe that the provision relating to the position and authority of the supervisory council in the KPK Law has the potential to violate the principle of separation of powers because the supervisory council in the KPK Law is a structural institution that reports directly to the President, as can be seen from the provision relating to the mechanism and procedure for the appointment and dismissal of the five members.

The Petitioners believe that Article 30 of the KPK Law stipulates that the leadership of the KPK is recruited through a check and balance mechanism between the President and the House of Representatives (DPR). It is unusual that a state auxiliary institution established to assist prevention and prosecution of corruption is inferior to the internal supervisory council formed to supervise it. 

On that note, the House of Representatives\' ethics council (MKD) and the Constitutional Court’s Ethics Council are not authorized to take over the authorities of the agencies they supervise. Thus, it is curious that the supervisory council in the Second Amendment to the KPK Law is authorized to determine whether confiscation, wiretap, and/or search may be carried out. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti