RKUHAP Highlighted: 17 Points Allegedly Weaken KPK, Including OTT Authority And Wiretapping

JAKARTA - Indonesia Calling (IM) 57+ Institute assesses that efforts to weaken the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) are again seen in the Revision of the Law on the Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP).

This was conveyed by the Chairman of the IM 57+ Institute, Lakso Anindito in response to 17 problematic points in the RKUHAP which have the potential to interfere with the authority of the KPK. He said a number of corruption eradication jobs would be disrupted, including when the anti-corruption commission would carry out a hand arrest operation (OTT).

"This can be a 'silent way' in an effort to weaken the authority of the KPK, especially in the implementation of hand arrest operations (OTT)," said Lakso in a written statement quoted on Monday, July 21.

Lakso even said that OTT could be removed because of the RKUHAP. Because this revision will later regulate wiretapping problems to investigators.

"If there is no change, this means a real step to eliminate OTT," he said.

"In addition, the problem is also present at the stage of handling the case. This is the gap to regulate the course of the case at the KPK," continued the former KPK employee.

In the future, Lakso reminded policy makers not to actually make the KPK weaker by ratifying the RKUHP.

"The revision of the KPK Law in 2019, has pushed back the eradication of corruption in Indonesia through the weakening of the KPK. Do not let this tragedy get worse with the existence of free riders which makes the KPK even worse," he said.

The IM 57+ Institute also asked for the discussion of the RKUHAP to be dismissed first. And substantive public participation must be carried out to support this step," said Lakso.

Previously reported, the Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Setyo Budiyanto revealed that RKUHAP has the potential to reduce the authority of its institution. This condition has been discussed in discussions with a number of experts.

"We see that there are potentials that can then affect authority, reduce the authority of duties and functions of the Corruption Eradication Commission," Setyo told reporters at the KPK's Merah Putih building, Kuningan Persada, South Jakarta, Thursday night, July 17.

Setyo said there were 17 crucial points that were the most highlighted by his institution. Thus, legislators are asked not to rush.

"In principle, the KPK hopes that the Criminal Procedure Code Bill is prepared openly, meaning that it is open, yes, transparent," he said.

The 17 problems in the RKUHAP that could interfere with the work of the KPK are as follows:

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.