Petitioner Gugum Ridho Putra (right) alongside his legal counsels (left, center) entering the courtroom for the judicial review of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission, Tuesday (09/12/2023) in the Courtroom. Photo MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) was held by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, September 12, 2023. The hearing examined the revisions to the petition No. 87/PUUXX/2023 was filed by Gugum Ridho Putra, an advocate.

At the hearing, legal counsel Irfan Maulana Muharam said articles were added as the subject of the petition. Initially, only the phrases “controlling” and “coordinating” in Article 42 of the KPK Law were challenged, but now it is the entirety of Article 42.

“The next subjects in Law No.  31 of 1997 on the Military Justice are the phrase ‘Minister of Justice’ in Article 198 paragraphs (1) and (3), Article 200 paragraph (2), and Article 203 paragraph (5), the word ‘investigator’ in Article 198 paragraph (2), the phrase ‘prosecutor’ or ‘high prosecutor’ in Article 199 paragraphs (1) and (3), and the phrase ‘public prosecutor’ in Article 200 paragraph (1),” Irfan explained.

The Petitioner also revised the elaboration of his legal standing. Previously, he was mentioned as an advocate. “Now it has been changed to an individual Indonesian citizen and taxpayer,” Irfan added.

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

The Petitioner challenges Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law), as 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).

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, August 30, 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.

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.

---