Petitioner Wishes KPK’s Authority in Connexity Corruption Offenses Be Strengthened

Petitioner Gugum Ridho Putra (second from left), alongside his legal counsels, conveying this petition of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law, Wednesday (8/30/2023). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

JAKARTA (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Article 34 of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law), which was last amended by Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002, and Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Wednesday, August 30, 2023. The petition No. 87/PUUXX/2023 was filed by Gugum Ridho Putra, an advocate.

The Petitioner challenges the phrase “coordinate and control” in Article 42 of the KPK Law as well as the word “Investigator” in Article 89 paragraph (2); the phrase “Minister of Justice” in Article 89 paragraph (1), Article 89 paragraph (3), Article 91 paragraph (2), and Article 94 paragraph (5); the phrase “prosecutor or high prosecutor” in Article 90 paragraph (1), Article 90 paragraph (3), Article 91 paragraph (1), and Article 91 paragraph (3); the phrase “high prosecutor” in Article 93 paragraph (1); the phrase “Attorney General” in Article 90 paragraph (3), Article 93 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); the phrase “Public Prosecutor” in Article 91 paragraph (1), Article 92 paragraph (1), and Article 93 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP.

The Petitioner cited impairment related to the authority to investigate criminal offenses in connexity or criminal offenses involving both civilians and military officers, especially corruption crimes handled by the KPK. He believes the handling of corruption cases in connexity by the KPK is inclined to prioritize punishment on criminals who are civilians.

Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution clearly states “All citizens shall have equal status before the law and the government and hold the law and the government in esteem without exception.” The Petitioner believes the KPK’s unprofessionalism in handling connexity cases is due to the unclear norms governing the investigation and prosecution of connexity offenses.

Based on Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulates that everyone shall be entitled to equal treatment before the law, the fact that a corruption case is committed by a civilian or a military officer should not impact the status of the delict.

“The KPK already has the authority to inquire, prosecute, and investigate cases involving civilians and military personnel. However, the procedure for exercising that authority has not been determined clearly. Meanwhile, the KUHAP—in the articles petitioned for review, Articles 89 to 93—has regulated the procedure, starting from the formation of a joint investigative team, a joint prosecution team, to the mechanism for appointing the composition of the panel of judges who will hear the case. Even the KUHAP has also regulated any dispute within the joint prosecution team. There is a legal need for the KPK to be able to use the connexity authority, which is also regulated in the KUHAP,” the Petitioner said at the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

Therefore, the Petitioner request that the Court grant his petition and declare Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission and Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) unconstitutional and not legally binding and, among other things, declare the phrase “coordinate and control” in Article 42 of the KPK Law means that the KPK is obliged to coordinate and control the handling of connexity corruption cases in accordance with Articles 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 94 of the KUHAP.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the Petitioner’s petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised him to explain his legal standing. “The Petitioner wants to strengthen the KPK, especially in finding cases that intersect with the authority of other institutions, particularly the military court, or the authority of military officials related to the criminal law enforcement process. Please observe whether the connection is only between these two laws even though the petition also mentions Law No. 31 of 1997. However, the investigative authority [in that Law] is not questioned at all in this petition. If only reinforcement of KPK investigators [is requested] to provide broader authority as stipulated in the KUHAP without providing identification of investigators in the military court, at the empirical level there will be more dispute,” he said.

Before adjourning the session, the panel announced that the Petitioners had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office no later than Tuesday, September 12, 2023 to the Registrar’s Office.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        :
Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Tahlitha Laela/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

Wednesday, August 30, 2023 | 15:50 WIB 93