Novel Baswedan after attending a preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the KPK Law, Monday (7/22/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — A group of former employees of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has filed a Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) have filed a material judicial review petition of Article 29 letter e of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law) as the Constitutional Court (MK) has reinterpreted in Decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022.
These individuals are now working as state civil apparatuses (ASN) in the Indonesian National Police (Polri), other government agencies, or private companies. The Petitioners include Police ASN Novel Baswedan, Mochamad Praswad Nugraha, and Rizka Anungnata; civil servants/PNS Harun Al Rasyid, Budi Agung Nugroho, Andre Dedy Nainggolan, Herbert Nababan, Andi Abd Rachman Rachim, and Juliandi Tigor Simanjuntak; as well as private employees March Falentino, Farid Andhika, and Waldy Gagantika. They claim that the enforcement of Article 29 letter e of the KPK Law infringes upon their constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D, and Article 28I of the 1945 Constitution.
“We believe that our experience in fighting corruption at the KPK should be considered by Your Honors,” said Novel at the preliminary hearing for Case No. 68/PUU-XXII/2024 on Monday, July 22, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.
As former KPK employees, the Petitioners’ constitutional right had been harmed as they are deemed ineligible to join the KPK commissioner selection for the 2024-2028 term. This is because Article 29 letter e of the KPK Law as reinterpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 reads, “In order to be eligible to be appointed a Corruption Eradication Commission Commissioner, a candidate must be: e. at least 50 (fifty years old) and or have experience as a KPK Commissioner, and at most 65 (sixty-five) years old during the year of selection.”
The Petitioners claim to have over 10 years of experience as KPK employees, with ages below 50 but above 40, which previously fit the minimum age requirement for KPK commissioner candidacy before the revised 2019 KPK Law was enforced. However, with the enforcement of Article 29 (e) of the KPK Law, they cannot run for the KPK commissioner for the 2024-2028 term due to not meeting the minimum age requirement.
They argue that the minimum age requirement of 50 years for KPK commissioners is not stipulated in the Constitution, thus it falls under the legislatures’ open legal policy. The minimum age requirement of 50 years and the maximum age of 65 years have excluded the Petitioners, who are under 50, from running for KPK commissioners for the 2024-2028 term.
The Petitioners propose that to prevent constitutional harm, Article 29 letter e of the KPK Law should be reinterpreted again by the Court to read, “at least 50 (fifty years old) and or have experience as a KPK Commissioner or at least 40 (forty) years old with at least 5 (five) years of experience as a Corruption Eradication Commission staff, and at most 65 (sixty-five) years old.”
Mochamad Praswad Nugraha cited comparative studies on age requirements for leadership positions in other national agencies, including the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia (40 years), the General Elections Commission or KPU (30 years), the National Human Rights Commission or Komnas HAM (40 years), the Judicial Commission (40 years), the Central Information Commission (35 years), and the Audit Board or BPK (35 years). He hopes these comparisons will be taken into consideration by the Court in its deliberations.
“We hope this comparison will be considered by Your Honors, as other state institutions have set the minimum age between 35-40 years, while only the KPK requires 50 years,” he explained.
Request for Delay of KPK Commissioner Selection
Additionally, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Lakso Anindito mentioned that the judicial review petition had been submitted to the Court in May 2024, but the Court was focused on resolving the 2024 general election results disputes (PHPU). Therefore, he requested an interlocutory decision to grant the Petitioners a dispensation or a postponement of the KPK commissioner selection process, which closed on Monday, July 15, 2024.
“We seek an interlocutory decision from Your Honors to prevent our clients from further losing their rights and to receive a dispensation or a postponement of the ongoing selection process,” he stated.
Thus, in their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court grant their petition in its entirety. Additionally, they request that the Court declare Article 29 (e) of the KPK Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding unless interpreted as: “at least 50 (fifty) years old or have experience as a KPK commissioner or at least 40 (forty) years old with at least 5 (five) years of experience as an employee of the Corruption Eradication Commission, and no older than 65 (sixty-five) years.”
Justices’ Advice
The hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Arsul Sani. During the advice session, Justice Enny pointed out that the Petitioners had not explained why their petition did not violate the principle of ne bis in idem or different from previous ones already decided by the Court.
“This is a tough one because this matter was recently ruled by the Court in Decision No. 112 of 2022. Then you ask that his be ruled again. You need to convincingly explain where the constitutional issue lies to persuade the Court. You must elaborate the touchstones and have a strong argument,” she explained.
Meanwhile, Justice Arsul Sani commented on the educational qualification for KPK commissioners are in line with the mandates given to the KPK, such as enforcement, prevention, and education related to corruption eradication. He expressed concern that the petitum, in which the Petitioners ask for experience as a KPK employee without more explanation, could lead to other issues.
“Why not specify the qualifications related to the core functions of the KPK? Otherwise, as previously mentioned, and no disrespect to other fields, we might face issues where long-term employees in non-core areas, such as long-time school drivers, become eligible,” he explained.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo also mentioned that the Court was prioritizing the resolution of the 2024 PHPU cases. He acknowledged that the Court had deferred the judicial review petitions during the PHPU process, with over 50 received since March.
“Indeed, there is a time overlap with the acceptance of candidates for KPK commissioners, but it depends on how the justices meeting will handle the [request for interlocutory ruling]. Historically, the Court rarely grants [such requests], although it does so occasionally based on the case’s relevance and the strength of the arguments,” he explained.
Before adjourning the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo said the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition and must submit it by Monday, August 5 at 13:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator : Dzaki Difa Al Hadiid/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.
Monday, July 22, 2024 | 15:15 WIB 97