The ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption, Wednesday (9/29/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Wednesday, September 29, 2021 | 15:18 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review petition of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001 by Patrice Rio Capella.

“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other constitutional justices at the ruling hearing for the case No. 29/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday afternoon, September 29, 2021.

The Court in its opinion holds that corruption is a serious issue that all nations face. This led the United Nations to form the “Corruption of Government” resolution in Havana, Cuba in 1990, which emphasizes that corruption among public officials can destroy the potential effectiveness of all types of government programs, hinder development, and create individuals and community group victims.

“This was the reason why corruption acts are very serious crimes,” said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s opinion.

Also read: Patrice Rio Capella Petitions Corruption Law’s Provision on Bribery

Therefore, he added, the world community has high expectations for corruption eradication efforts and agreed that it has hurt the sense of justice and social norms. The legislatures as people’s representatives hoped to overcome this issue by drafting the Anti-Corruption Law, which aims for more effective corruption eradication and not only to provide definitions of corruption offenses and the consequences for those offenses.

Reading out the Court’s considerations, Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto said that Article 11 of the Anti-Corruption Law clearly and unequivocally stipulates that civil servants and state administrators can only be punished for accepting a “payment or promise,” which, is known or reasonably suspected to have been given due to power or authority related to his/her position or which according to the contributor still has something to do with his/her position. Sentencing by a judge through a decision is based on the evidence of criminal elements, including an assessment of the perpetrator’s motivation.

“Therefore, the Court maintains that the Petitioner’s argument was legally groundless,” Justice Aswanto stressed.

The Court considered the Petitioner’s argument that the phrase “which according to the contributor still has something to do with his/her position” in Article 11 of the Anti-Corruption Law had led to difficulty in obtaining evidence as, according to the Petitioner, not one person can fully attest to what someone else is thinking.

The Court maintains that Article 11 of the Anti-Corruption Law, which contains the phrase “believed,” intends so that the subject of the norm—civil servants or state administrators—are always able to predict the possibilities that could arise, such as negligence, in a criminal offense. The perpetrator must be able to predict the possibilities that the criteria of a criminal offense can be met, in casu payment or promise that would not be given in the absence of his/her position.

Therefore, the Court holds that the phrase “which according to the contributor still has something to do with his/her position” in Article 11 of the Anti-Corruption Law does not hinder the fulfillment of the citizens’ right to due process of law that is good, true, and fair and rendered the Petitioner’s argument on the phrase legally groundless.

Also read: Nasdem Party’s Former Chairman Revises Petition on Corruption Law

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner revealed that he was tried for alleged corruption in 2015. When serving in the House of Representatives (DPR), he had received a cash reward of 200 million rupiahs from Gatot Pujo Nugroho and Evy Susanti as a token of appreciation for assisting in the reconciliation between Gatot Pujo Nugroho and Tengku Ery Nurasi.

The Petitioner argued that Article 11 of the Anti-Corruption Law was ambiguous, subjective, and against the basic principles in the criminal justice system. He believes that a person can be charged or sentenced for a crime, but not for intent (cogitationis poenam nemo patitur) and a person cannot be charged for another person’s intent. Therefore, requested that the Court declare Article 11 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001, especially the phrase “which according to the contributor still has something to do with his/her position,” be declared in violation of Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Writer        : Nano Tresna A.
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/29/2021 12:32 WIB

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

---