The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Calls The Investigation Opportunities Article Can Give A Deterrent Effect After Hasto Files A Lawsuit To The Constitutional Court

JAKARTA - The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) said that Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law actually has a purpose to provide a deterrent effect for parties who try to obstruct investigations.

This statement was conveyed by KPK spokesman Budi Prasetyo in response to the steps taken by PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyantyo to submit a judicial review of the article that regulates the obstruction of the investigation on Thursday, July 24. He initially said the politician had the right to file a lawsuit to the Constitutional Court (MK).

"We respect the constitutional rights of every citizen to file a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court, in this case related to the article on the obstruction of the investigation or Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law," Budi told reporters at the KPK's Merah Putih building, Kuningan Persada, South Jakarta, Tuesday, July 29.

However, the KPK assesses that Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law has its own urgency. One of them, Budi said, guaranteed that the investigation process would run smoothly without intervention.

"The urgency of implementing the obstruction article for investigations in criminal acts of corruption is to ensure effective law enforcement and provide a deterrent effect for perpetrators of corruption and those who try to hinder the legal process," he said.

"This article also ensures that the investigation process runs smoothly without intervention that can damage the integrity of law enforcement," continued Budi.

Budi emphasized that the KPK had several times ensnared parties suspected of obstructing investigations using Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law.

"Among them are in the corruption case in the procurement of e-KTP and gratuities in Papua. The parties who were named suspects at that time were found guilty and sentenced to criminal penalties by the panel of judges," explained Budi.

As previously reported, the Secretary General of the PDI-P (PDIP) sued Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law to the Constitutional Court (MK). This lawsuit was filed a day before he was sentenced to bribery in the management of interim replacement (PAW) members of the Indonesian House of Representatives for the 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of the investigation that left Harun Masiku on the run.

"We have registered it. We registered it on Thursday night, so before the verdict," said Hasto's lawyer, Maqdir Ismail when contacted by reporters, Monday, July 28.

The Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law that Hasto was sued was related to the obstruction of the investigation. Here's the full sound:

"Everyone who deliberately prevents, obstructs, or thwarts directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution, and examination at trial of the suspect and defendant or witnesses in a corruption case, shall be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of three years and a maximum of twelve years and/or a fine of at least Rp. 150,000,000.00 and a maximum of Rp. 600,000,000.00."

There are several reasons why Hasto sued Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law. Among them are the interpretations that are considered arbitrary, for example, in the process of investigating people, this article could be charged as was done by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

The second reason is that Hasto's camp sees that this article should be applied not only to hinder investigations but also to the unambiguousness of the judiciary.

"Then what we also saw was that the threat of this Article far exceeded, if we read the Anti-Corruption Law, Article 21 is a kind of additional article that threatens third parties to commit acts of obstructing," said Hasto's lawyer, Maqdir Ismail when contacted by reporters, Monday, July 28.