Responding to the Constitutional Court's Decision, Commission III of the DPR Will Include Revisions to the Tipikor Law in Prolegnas 2026

Member of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Nasir Djamil, responded to the Constitutional Court's (MK) decision to reject two constitutional tests in Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes (Tipikor Law).

Nasir opened the opportunity for a revision of the Tipikor Law in line with the Constitutional Court's proposal for the government and the DPR to reformulate the law. He said that the revision of the Tipikor Law would be proposed to the DPR Legislation Agency (Baleg) to be included in the 2026 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas).

"Of course, the DPR will include changes to the Tipikor Law in the national legislation program," said Nasir Djamil, Thursday, December 18.

The member of the legal affairs commission also agreed with the Constitutional Court's ruling, which stated that Article 2 Paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Law were constitutional. Where the judge assessed that the wording of the articles already contained the meaning of acts against the law that caused state losses.

"Agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Because criminal law must be brighter than light," said the PKS legislator from the Aceh District.

Nasir hopes that the revision of the Tipikor Law can be included in the 2026 priority Prolegnas. "Hopefully it can be included in the 2026 priority," he added.

As is known, the Constitutional Court rejected two constitutional tests of Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 and its Explanation in Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes (Tipikor Law), through Decision Number 142/PUU-XXII/2024 and Decision Number 161/PUU-XXII/2024.

The petition 142/PUU-XXII/2024 by Syahril Japarin et al. asks the Constitutional Court to emphasize the elements of enriching oneself, others, or corporations up to the legal act. Meanwhile, the application numbered 161/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Hotasi DP.

In essence, the applicants asked for a reinterpretation by adding phrases in the second formulation of the two articles because their implementation was considered multi-interpretable. Regarding these two applications, the panel stated that Article 2 Paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Law were constitutional.

"To reject the applicant's request in its entirety," said the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Suhartoyo, when reading the Decision Number 142/PUU-XXII/2024 at the Constitutional Court Building, Wednesday, December 17.

The judge considered that the sounds of the articles already contained the meaning of acts against the law that caused state losses.

"Thus, the elements of illegality in Article 2 Paragraph (1) of the Corruption Law and the elements of abuse of authority, opportunity, or means that exist in him because of his position or position," explained Judge Ridwan Mansyur.

Quoted from the official website of the MKRI, the Court has confirmed its stance that the existence of the norms of Article 2 paragraph (1) and the norms of Article 3 of the Corruption Law. However, the Court can also understand that in the application of these norms, they can often lead to a discourse related to the potential of non-single interpretations and also have the potential to create disharmony or inconsistency for law enforcement officials in dealing with corruption.

Therefore, regarding the formulation of the criminal sanction norms, it is not the authority of the Court to formulate it. In addition, the Tipikor Law is currently a national legislation program for 2025-2029.

Through this ruling, the Court emphasized that the law-makers should immediately prioritize a comprehensive review and open opportunities to reform the Tipikor Law, especially regarding the norms of Article 2 paragraph (1) and the norms of Article 3 of the Tipikor Law.

Regarding this, the Court encourages several things that need to be considered by the law makers in re-formulating the Tipikor Law. First, the law makers immediately conduct a comprehensive review of the norms of Article 2 paragraph (1) and the norms of Article 3 of the Tipikor Law.

Second, in terms of the results of the study requiring revision or improvement to the norms of Article 2 paragraph (1) and the norms of Article 3 of the Corruption Law, the lawmaker can position the revision or improvement as a priority. Third, if the revision or improvement needs to be carried out, the lawmaker must carefully and maturely take into account so that the implications of the revision or improvement do not reduce the legal policy of eradicating corruption as an extraordinary crime.

Fourth, the substance related to the criminal sanction norms is formulated in a more certain legal manner in order to reduce the potential for abuse of authority in eradicating corruption. Fifth, the revision or improvement involves the participation of all parties concerned with the agenda of eradicating corruption by applying the principle of meaningful public participation.