Principal Petitioners Martinus Butarbutar and Risof Mario delivering the subjects of petition revision in the judicial review hearing of the KPK Law, Thursday (9/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Thursday (9/1/2020). The case No. No. 84/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by advocates Martinus Butarbutar and Risof Mario. In the petition, the Petitioners argue that Article 12B, Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 37B paragraph (1) letter b, Article 38, as well as Article 47 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the KPK Law are unconstitutional.

In the second hearing, Risof affirmed the petitum. The Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 37C paragraph (1) of the KPK Law unconstitutional and not legally binding as well as annul the articles being challenged.

"[We request that the Court] order the provisions governing the entire organ of the Corruption Eradication Commission determined in the law and the Decision of the Constitutional Court on the a quo petition in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as it should be," Risof explained before a hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Suhartoyo. 

In the previous hearing, the Petitioners argued that there has been a transfer of authority stipulated by the KPK Law so KPK leaders and investigators should not have the authority in the KPK Law in question. Because the KPK Law regulates the authority to carry out procedural law to eradicate corruption, the authority falls to the hand of the Supervisory Council, as the law grant the Supervisory Council the right to grant or withhold permit to carry out research, investigations, searches, wiretaps, and other matters. 

Therefore, lawmakers have dishonestly built an assumption as if the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is an institution that is a subordinate of the government. This assumption is inaccurate or was purposefully created by lawmakers, who built the impression that there was sufficient reason for the government to form a Supervisory Council. In fact, it should be interpreted that in addition to the government there are other executive institutions outside the government. Those executive institutions are not branches of government and do not answer to one other. Therefore, the Petitioners through their petition requested that the Court declare the KPK Law contradictory to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti