Plenary judicial review hearing of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law, Tuesday (14/1) 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 Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law) on Tuesday (14/1/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing for petitions No. 62/PUU-XVII/2019, 70/PUU-XVII/2019, 71/PUU-XVII/2019, and 73/PUU-XVII/2019 had been scheduled to hear the statement of the Government. However, to the presiding justice Chief Justice Anwar Usman, the Government stated that they were not prepared to give the statement.
"Because the Government is not ready, the hearing is postponed and will resume on Monday, February 3, 2020. Hereby we conclude this session," Anwar Usman said as he knocked on the hammer three times to close the session.
The petition No. 62/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by attorney Gregorius Yonathan Deowikaputra. He challenged Article 11 paragraph (1) letter a of the KPK Law that reads, “Involve law enforcement officers, government executives, or other parties connected to corrupt acts committed by law enforcement officers or government executives…” and Article 29 letter e that reads, “Is at least 50 (fifty) years old and at most 65 (sixty-five) years old during the year of selection.”
The Petitioner deemed the formation of the Second Amendment to the KPK Law closed and secretive, without involving the public. The minutes of the meeting on the DPR\'s official website related to discussions on the revision of the KPK Law were difficult to access.
Given these facts, it is clear that the provision is not based on the mandatory principles of usefulness, effectiveness, and openness in forming legislation as outlined in Article 118 of the House’s Code of Conduct in conjunction with Article 5 of Law No. 21 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation.
Petition No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by five law lecturers at several universities. They challenge Article 1 point 3 of the KPK Law that reads, “A Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, henceforth to be called the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), is to be executive agency that will perform its duties to prevent and eradicate criminal acts of corruption as the law allows” and Article 3 that reads, “The KPK is a State executive agency that will perform its duties and authority independently, free from any and all influence.”
The Petitioners felt they had not been given the same opportunity to provide input in the formation of the KPK Law relating to the disruption of the independence of the KPK, the uncertainty of the supervisory council\'s duties in pro-justice actions, the status of KPK employees, and the uncertainty regarding the reasons for terminating investigations and prosecutions.
According to the Petitioners, the formation process of the KPK Law formally violated and contradicted the principles that should be contained in a law, as mandated by Law No. 12 of 2011. The Petitioners argue that the enactment of the articles being petitioned will make it harder for the KPK to eradicate corruption and enforce fair law.
The petition No. 71/PUU-XVII/2019 filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak and other petitioners challenge Article 6 letter e of the KPK Law that reads, “The Corruption Eradication Commission is tasked with: c. conducting investigations, indictments, and prosecutions against criminal acts of corruption” as well as Article 12 paragraph (1) that reads, “In performing its task of coordination as outlined in Article 6 letter e, the Corruption Eradication Commission is authorized to conduct wiretapping.”
The petition No. 71/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Ricki Martin Sidauruk and Gregorianus Agung. They challenge Article 43 paragraph (1) that reads, “The Corruption Eradication Commission investigators may come from the police, Prosecutor’s Office, and other special agencies and/or the Corruption Eradication Commission internally.”
The Petitioners decided to participate in the eradication of corruption by becoming a KPK investigator because the role of KPK investigators is very important in eradicating criminal acts of corruption, given the main duty of an investigator in general is to look for and find any alleged criminal act to determine whether or not an investigation can be carried out.
The provision of the a quo article that is challenged by the Petitioners seemed as if those who had the opportunity to become KPK investigators were only from government agencies. The enactment of the a quo article has clearly diminished the Petitioners’ opportunity to become KPK investigators through an independent channel, which is their right as protected by the 1945 Constitution. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)
Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti
Tuesday, January 14, 2020 | 18:29 WIB 146