KPK Chairman Concerning RKUHAP: Forced Efforts Related To Corruption Don't Coordinate Other Parties

JAKARTA - Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Setyo Budiyanto asked for the revision of the Law on the Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP) not to make certain parties the coordinators when carrying out forced efforts to investigate allegations of corruption.

The forced efforts that Setyo meant were related to wiretapping, investigations, investigations to deviation.

"This forced effort should not be reduced, or perhaps should be coordinated by other parties," said Setyo, quoted from the Indonesian KPK YouTube, Friday, July 18.

Setyo hopes that RKUHAP can strengthen the specificity of his institution. Given, the KPK was formed based on a law that specifically regulates the prevention, education, and prosecution of corruption.

"Well, with these tasks, it is hoped that there will be reinforcement in the existence of this Criminal Procedure Code Bill, because the Criminal Procedure Code is strong, of course efforts to eradicate corruption will be better, it will be maximized," he said.

"Don't wait until later, we hope, especially for Panja, then for the government, between body trunks and transitional provisions, this is not in sync. If it is like this, of course, it will cause something biased, there is no certainty," continued the former Director of KPK Investigation.

In the future, Setyo hopes that the discussion of the RKUHAP can be carried out openly and transparently. All parties should be able to provide input to the maker of the law.

"So that we can see that the manufacture of the Criminal Procedure Code has the spirit to build a legal process that is beneficial, just for the entire community," he said.

Previously reported, the KPK has conducted a study related to the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHP) internally. As a result, there are 17 points that are considered to be able to interfere with their performance.

"In the development of internal discussions of the KPK, there are at least 17 points that are noted and we are still discussing this and of course later we will also convey the results to the President and DPR as input related to the Draft Criminal Procedure Law," said KPK Spokesperson Budi Prasetyo to reporters at the KPK's Merah Putih building, Kuningan Persada, South Jakarta, Wednesday, July 16.

The following are 17 points of problems in the RKUHAP that have the potential to interfere with the work of the KPK:

1. The KPK Law which regulates investigators and investigators as well as special procedural law or lex specialists has the potential to be interpreted as not in sync because Articles 329 and 330 of the RKUHAP have phrases: ... as long as it does not conflict with the provisions in this law.;

2. Continuation of case handling carried out by the anti-corruption commission can only be resolved based on the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, the Criminal Procedure Code, the KPK Law, and the Anti-Corruption Law have been guidelines;

3. The existence of KPK investigators is not accommodated in the Criminal Procedure Code Bill. Investigators only come from the National Police and investigators are supervised by Police Investigators. The regulation is not in sync with the duties and functions of the KPK because of the authority to carry out investigations, appoint and dismiss investigators;

4. Investigations are only looking for and finding criminal incidents. In fact, the KPK investigation has found at least two pieces of evidence;

5. Witness testimony recognized as evidence is only obtained at the stage of investigation, prosecution, and/or examination at trial;

6. Determination of the suspect is determined after investigators collect and obtain two pieces of evidence. So this is not in line with Article 44 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the KPK Law regarding investigation;

7. Termination of investigations must involve Police Investigators. The KPK Law has regulated the termination of investigation by the KPK and based on the Amar Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 70/PUU-XVII/2019 number 6, then the termination of investigation by the KPK must be notified to the Supervisory Board;

8. Submission of case files to the Public Prosecutor through Police Investigators;

9. Search of the suspect and accompanied by Police Investigators from the jurisdiction of the search site;

10. Confiscation with a request for permission from the Chairman of the District Court. This is contrary because this forced effort has been regulated by the KPK Law and no longer needs permission from other parties and the Supervisory Board must also have been informed;

11. Wiretapping. The KPK has so far had the authority to conduct wiretapping since the investigation stage without the permission of the Head of the District Court and was notified to the Supervisory Board;

12. Prohibition of traveling abroad is only against suspects. In fact, the KPK has been able to disentangle abroad for witnesses as stipulated in the KPK Law;

13. The principal of corruption cases cannot be tried during the pretrial process;

14. The authority of the KPK in the case of connectivity is not accommodated;

15. Protection of Witnesses/Reporters only by LPSK;

16. Prosecution outside the jurisdiction with the temporary appointment of the Attorney General. In fact, so far the KPK prosecutor has been appointed and dismissed by the KPK and has the authority to prosecute throughout Indonesia; and

17. The public prosecutor consists of officials from the Prosecutor's Office and an institution authorized based on the provisions of the law. The KPK considers that the regulation should be written by KPK officials as part of the public prosecutor.