Petitioners’ legal counsel delivering a petition revision during a panel hearing on material judicial review of Law Number 19 of 2019 on the Corruption Eradication Commission, Thursday (28/11) at the Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Jakarta (MKRI) – Vice Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Alexander Marwata (Petitioner I), along with junior auditor Lies Kartika Sari (Petitioner II) and administrator of the KPK Leadership Secretariat Maria Fransiska (Petitioner III) revised their petition on material judicial review of Article 36 letter a of Law Number 19 of 2019 on Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law). The Petitioners added arguments on their constitutional losses due to the enactment of the article prohibiting KPK leaders from establishing relationships directly or indirectly with suspects or other parties related to the corruption cases (tipikor) handled by the KPK for any reason.
“It clearly shows the result of the uncertainty over boundaries or the categorization of the prohibition regarding “relations … for any reason” in the article has caused the Petitioner I to be named as reported for a suspected crime and clearly harmed him, factually,” the Petitioners’ legal counsel Periati Br. Ginting said in the Courtroom during the petition revision examination hearing of Case Number 158/PUU-XXII/2024 on Thursday, November 28, 2024.
The Petitioners explained that KPK, as a law enforcement body consisting of leaders and employees carries out its responsibilities and obligations to prevent and prosecute corruption through a series of activities of receiving reports, investigating, examining, prosecuting, and implementing decisions. So it is impossible not to have a relationship with the community. Based on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), investigators, examiners, prosecutors, and including judges are authorized to conduct relationships, either directly or indirectly with suspects or other parties related to the case.
As the description of the legal basis that requires and is therefore authorized to establish direct or indirect relationships by other law enforcement agencies such as the Police, Prosecutors, and Judges, because in carrying out their duties it is impossible for these institutions to be prohibited from establishing relationships with the reporting public, witnesses and suspects. Therefore, if KPK leaders and employees are prohibited from establishing relationships with suspects or other parties, while for legal subjects of other law enforcement officials in Indonesia, this is not prohibited, then the legal norms have clearly regulated discrimination between KPK leaders and employees and other law enforcement officials in Indonesia, this violates the anti-discrimination provisions in the Indonesian constitution contained in Article 281 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
The formulation of the act regulated in Article 36 letter a of the KPK Law is the act of establishing direct or indirect contact with the subject, namely with suspects or other parties related to corruption cases handled by the KPK. In the formulation, the intended subject in the relationship is a suspect or other party that has a relationship with a corruption case handled by the KPK, this shows that the intended subject consists of a suspect or other party that has a relationship with a corruption case handled by the KPK.
The provisions on who is a suspect are limited because the status of a suspect has also been regulated in Article 1 point 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Meanwhile, the certainty of who and what the boundaries are with “Other parties related to corruption cases handled by the Corruption Eradication Commission” is unclear because these other parties can be reporters, witnesses, family, or colleagues. Based on the interpretation of the norms of Article 36 letter a of the KPK Law and its derivatives in the norms below it in the provisions of the KPK's internal regulations, it has clearly caused legal uncertainty due to the uncertainty of the relationship in what context, the other parties referred to to what degree and context, and the cases referred to cases with suspects or cases since receipt even though the status of the suspect has not been declared. This uncertainty has caused constitutional loss to the Petitioners.
In their petition, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 36 letter a of the KPK Law conditionally contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “to establish a direct or indirect relationship with the suspect or his representative to relieve him.”
Also read: Alex Marwata Questions the Prohibition for KPK Leaders to Meet Litigating Parties
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario
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.
Thursday, November 28, 2024 | 19:01 WIB 35