Principal Petitioner Martinus Butarbutar after the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the KPK Law, Wednesday (29/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed the judicial review petition of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The decision No. No. 84/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other eight constitutional justices in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday(29/1/2020). The case was petitioned by advocates Martinus Butarbutar and Risof Mario. In the petition, the Petitioners argued 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 were unconstitutional. 

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court stated that in explaining their legal standing, the Petitioners did not elaborate on the actual constitutional damage they had suffered due to the enactment of Article 37C paragraph (2) of the KPK Law. They instead only highlighted how the KPK Law in relation to the implementation of state power can threaten every Indonesian individual. According to the Court, Justice Arief explained, the description of the constitutional damage was not specific and actual in relation to the validity of the article petitioned. 

The Petitioners only described general damage due to the implementation of the KPK Law but did not explain clearly and in detail the actual damage they had suffered as Indonesian citizens who worked as advocates due to the enactment of the KPK Law. "So there does not appear to be a causal relationship with the enactment of the a quo law," Justice Arief said before the Court. 

Not a Reason for Constitutional Damage

Justice Arief said that in explaining the damage of their constitutional rights, the Petitioners only relied on the provision of Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which according to the Court is not a basis for declaring damage of constitutional rights. That is because it is related to the concept of the rule of law, which in no way explains the constitutional rights of citizens. Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioners could not explain the constitutional damage, both actual and potential. "Therefore, the Petitioners do not meet the legal standing requirements to file a petition as referred to in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law," he explained.

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