House Commission III member Arteria delivering the House\'s statement in response to the judicial review of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law, Monday (3/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—A follow-up 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) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (3/2/2020) 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, 73/PUU-XVII/2019, 77/PUU-XVII/2019, and 79/PUU-XVII/2019 was to hear the statement of the House and the Government.
House Commission III member Arteria conveyed the House\'s statement that the KPK was given the authority to wiretap and record conversations, indicating special and extraordinary authority in efforts to eradicate corruption. "This great authority must be balanced with caution so that it is not abused. Wiretap and recording of conversations are restrictions on human rights. All of that must be regulated in order to avoid abuse of authority that violates human rights and law enforcement," Arteria said before the constitutional justices led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, along with the other constitutional justices.
The wiretapping arrangement in the KPK Law, according to the House, actually provides more legal certainty because the previous regulation does not regulate permission by the Supervisory Council so that KPK leaders can immediately take action.
The House also responded to the absence of a KPK representative office in the regions. Arteria stressed that it was a legislative step to streamline the KPK\'s performance as a law enforcement agency without reducing its authority to eradicate corruption in the regions.
Meanwhile, on behalf of the Government Agus Hariadi conveyed information related to the formation of the KPK supervisory council based on the provisions of the 1945 Constitution and the 2003 United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC 2003). "In accordance with the 2003 UNCAC Convention, the addition of bodies in efforts to eradicate corruption does not contradict the anti-corruption laws. However, as a form of state obligation, (the state) evaluates and enhances corruption eradication efforts," said Agus as expert staff coordinator for the Minister of Law and Human Rights. Thus, the formation of a supervisory council, according to the Government, is an effort to implement the state\'s obligation to develop an anti-corruption policy.
In addition, in forming the KPK Law the Government referred to the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, that there is no longer the highest state institution, as all are equal. There is no absolute power anymore. "So the KPK is no longer an absolute authority but has been adjusted in the implementation of a government system based on the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioners\' argument that the formation of the supervisory council weakens corruption eradication is groundless," said Agus.
Petitioner of case No. 62/PUU-XVII/2019 Gregorius Yonathan Deowikaputra challenged Article 11 paragraph (1) letter a of the KPK Law. He believes that the formation of the Second Amendment to the KPK Law was 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, he added, 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 Code of Conduct.
Petitioners No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019 Fathul Wahid and others challenge Articles 1 and 3 of the KPK Law. According to the Petitioners, the formation of the KPK Law was defective in relation to Law No. 12 of 2011 pre-amendment, because Law No. 15 of 2019 on the Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of Laws was only ratified on October 2, 2019 and promulgated on October 4, 2019 in the State Gazette of 2019 No. 183 while the KPK Law finished being formed in September 17, 2019.
Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak and other petitioners in case No. 71/PUU-XVII/2019 challenge Article 6 letter e and Article 12 paragraph (1) of the KPK Law. They believe the KPK supervisory council deviates from the supervision system and will lead to the weakening of corruption eradication by the KPK. The KPK supervisory council’s authority to authorize wiretapping, search, and seizure exceeds the supervision limits. This shows that the supervisory council is superior and has more authority than the KPK executives.
Ricki Martin Sidauruk and Gregorianus Agung in case No. 73/PUU-XVII/2019 challenge Article 43 paragraph (1) of the KPK Law. The requirements to become a KPK Investigator as regulated in Article 43A paragraph (1) letter a-d of the KPK Law have provided proportional standards that can be intended for the general public without limiting certain professions, which according to the Petitioners are very discriminatory. According to the Petitioners, the provisions of Article 43A paragraph (1) letter a-d of the KPK Law are irrelevant to be applied as long as it is interpreted "that only professions/government agencies" as mentioned in a quo article in requiring someone to become a KPK Investigator. This causes only people who come from the profession/government agencies mentioned by the KPK leadership can be appointed and dismissed as KPK Investigators.
Jovi Andrea Bachtiar and other petitioners in case No. 77/PUU-XVII/2019 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 the KPK Law. They challenge the authority of the KPK supervisory council, whose position and recruitment they deem potentially violating the principle of rule of law (rechtstaats) and judicial independence.
Agus Rahardjo, Laode Muhamad Syarif, and other petitioners in case No. 79/PUU-XVII/2019 argued that lawmakers did not show good faith in drafting the second amendment to the KPK Law, resulting in potential constitutional losses to citizens. 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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Raisa/NRA)
Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti
Tuesday, February 04, 2020 | 16:33 WIB 194