---

Maruarar Siahaan, an expert for the Government, delivering his expertise at the judicial review hearing of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law, Wednesday (9/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has always rejected any amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on KPK because it deemed the law sufficient in eradicating corruption, said KPK’s head of planning and legal products Rasamala Aritonang at a judicial review hearing of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law) on Wednesday, September 9, 2020. The eleventh and twelfth hearing for cases No. 59, 62, 70, 71, 73, 77, and 79/PUU-XVII/2019, presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, had been scheduled to hear the President’s expert and the witnesses for the Petitioners of case No. 79/PUU-XVII/2019 Agus Rahardjo, Laode Muhamad Syarif, and peers.

Via video conference, Aritonang said the main reason why the KPK rejected the KPK Law amendment in 2019 was its belief that it shouldn’t be explicitly placed in the executive structure, considering the graft body’s independence as a corruption eradication body in Indonesia. The KPK also believed that turning its employees into civil servants and establishing a supervisory board would threaten its independence.

“We offered out opinion in a press release on the 26 articles proposed in the amendment,” said Aritonang, who has served in the KPK since 2008.

He revealed that KPK leaders and officials didn’t receive the draft of the bill. Even after the amendment had been discussed, the KPK’s leaders and legal planning department didn’t receive any academic texts on the issue.

The Need for Supervisory Board 

On the other hand, former constitutional justice Maruarar Siahaan said that the KPK supervisory board was instrumental. The expert for the Government added that all matters pertaining to the KPK’s independence be formulated in a KPK regulation in detail.

“The KPK’s independence must be formulated in a KPK regulation. There [should be] more detailed guidelines on the KPK’s independence and that must be done. With such a regulation on [its] independence, there shouldn’t be any intervention with the body,” he explained.

Siahaan also said that the KPK is an unending concept that continues to develop. He believes corruption is a huge issue that cannot be seen as an ordinary social problem because it is related to democracy. “Due to corruption, the people’s democratic rights [are not fulfilled], so we need a concept of integrity and the KPK must be appointed a constitutional organ,” he explained.

He added that the KPK must follow the Government regarding the amendment to the KPK Law. Otherwise, the KPK will not see massive results of its efforts. The KPK must strive to be a constitutional organ. “As far as corruption sees profits, it will always exist. Therefore, an institution’s claim to integrity shouldn’t be taken at face value, but it needs to be based on a supervisory body’s assessment,” he said.

Also read:

Expert Deems Amendment Process of KPK Law Invalid 

Expert: KPK Law Allows Corruptors to Get Away

Former KPK Advisors and BEM UI Chairman Give Statements in Hearing on KPK Law 

The case No. 59/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by 25 advocates, who challenge the KPK Law formally and materially. According to the Petitioners, the revision to the KPK Law was not in accordance with the eradication of corruption in the state administration. Its ratification was not in accordance with existing legislation because the plenary session to ratify the law was attended by only 80 House members or less than half of the total number of House members. The revision was deemed secretive and hasty.

The Petitioner of case No. 62/PUU-XVII/2019, Gregorius Yonathan Deowikaputra, challenges Article 11 paragraph (1) letter a of the KPK Law. He deemed the formation of the Second Amendment to the KPK Law 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. The Petitioners of case No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019, Fathul Wahid and others, challenge Article 1 number 3 and Article 3 of the KPK Law. The Petitioners argue that there is a flaw in the formulation of the KPK revision bill. 

The Petitioners of case No. 71/PUU-XVII/2019, Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak and others, challenge Article 6 letter e and Article 12 paragraph (1) of the KPK Law. According to the Petitioners, the KPK supervisory board is a paradox that weakens corruption eradication. The Petitioners of case No. 73/PUU-XVII/2019, Ricki Martin Sidauruk and Gregorianus Agung, challenge Article 43 paragraph (1) of the KPK Law. The requirements for KPK investigators as regulated in Article 43A paragraph (1) letter a-d of the KPK Law are proportional for the general public without any restriction on the professions, which the Petitioners deem highly discriminatory.

Jovi Andrea Bachtiar and others challenge Article 12B paragraphs (2), (3), and (4); Article 12C paragraph (1); Article 21 paragraph (1); Article 37A paragraph (3) of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to the KPK Law for case No. 77/PUU-XVII/2019. They challenge the authority of the KPK supervisory board, whose position and recruitment they deem potentially violating the principle of rule of law (rechtstaats) and judicial independence.  

The Petitioners of case No. 79/PUU-XVII/2019, KPK leaders Agus Rahardjo, Laode Muhamad Syarif, and others, argued that lawmakers did not show good faith in drafting the second amendment to the KPK Law, resulting in potential constitutional losses to citizens. They believe the discussion of the KPK bill (RUU) took place quickly and in a hurry for approval. Therefore, they believe that it contributes to the formal defects and ambiguities in the KPK Law.

Before concluding the session, Chief Justice Anwar reminded all parties that the hearing would resume on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 11:00 WIB to hear the witnesses of the Petitioner of case No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Raisa
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/10/2020 16:41 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---