What's Up With The KPK?

The term of office of the KPK leadership has been extended to five years. (VOI / Irfan Meidianto)

JAKARTA Abraham Samad questioned the motives of the Deputy Chairperson of the KPK, Nurul Ghufron, to submit a judicial review of Article 29 letter (e) of Law Number 19 of 2019 regarding the requirements for the minimum age of the KPK leadership of 50 years and Article 34 of Law Number 30 of 2002 in conjunction with Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the period of the KPK leadership.

Because, according to him, the agenda is full of hidden, especially before the 2024 General Election. The judicial review is not at all related to institutional strengthening in eradicating corruption and tends to be political, only prioritizing the personal interests of the KPK leadership.

If it is related to institutions, it should not be that article that is subject to a judicial review. There are more substantial articles, such as articles that regulate the supervisory board, starting from Article 37A-37G or Article 40 concerning the authority to terminate the investigation.

So it is natural for the public to wonder why the position of KPK leadership should be extended. In fact, according to Samad, the design of the KPK commissioner's term of office for 4 years is what distinguishes the KPK from other executive institutions philosophically and sociologically. The affirmation that the KPK is an independent institution.

On the other hand, the extension of office also has the potential to produce corrupt actions because it has taken care of the desire for power. Do not let the alleged use of the KPK as a political tool be further virified.

"If only, this time the KPK leadership has extraordinary achievements, then maybe we can still understand. So we can conclude, there are no things that support and legitimize that the position of the KPK leadership period this time must be extended," said the Chairperson of the KPK for the 2011-2015 period as quoted from his YouTube channel on May 26, 2023.

However, according to Ghufron, the four-year term of office of the KPK leadership will make synchronization difficult by evaluating the results of the performance of eradicating corruption. This refers to the provisions for the periodization of national development planning that apply.

"The legal record, as stated in Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution, is five years of government in Indonesia, so that all periodizations of the government period should be five years," said Ghufron.

The KPK leadership for the 2015-2019 period, Saut Situmorang, also had the same opinion. Instead of strengthening institutions, the KPK leadership actually shows the spirit of power thirst by extending his position.

"The mission again, it was granted by the Constitutional Court," Saut told VOI on May 26, 2023.

The Constitutional Court (MK) stated that Article 29 letter e of the KPK Law which originally reads, is at least 50 years old and at the highest 65 years old in the election process is contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

"Unfortunately binding as long as it is not interpreted, at least 50 (fifty) years old or experienced as a KPK leader, and a maximum of 65 (sixty five) years in the election process," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman in his official statement on the website of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia on May 25, 2023.

The Constitutional Court also stated that Article 34 of the KPK Law which originally reads, the KPK leadership holds a position for 4 years and can be re-elected only for one term contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

"Unfortunately binding as long as it is not interpreted, the head of the Corruption Eradication Commission holds office for 5 years and can be re-elected only for one term," Anwar continued.

According to Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, the provisions for the term of office of KPK leadership for 4 years are not only discriminatory but also unfair when compared to commissions and other independent institutions that both have a constitutional importance value.

Violating the principles of justice, rationality, reasonable and discriminatory reasoning so that it is contrary to the provisions of Article 280 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

"Therefore, the term of office of the KPK leadership should be equated with the term of office of commissions and independent institutions that are included in the commission and institutions that have a consolidational importance, which is 5 years," said Judge Guntur as written on the website of the Constitutional Court on May 26, 2023.

The reformulation of the term of office also has an impact on the term of office of the supervisory board, so that the sentence of office of the supervisory board, which was originally 4 years, is also equalized to 5 years.

The decision, according to Saut, further shows that the KPK has now become a political institution and part of the government.

"If there is institutional strengthening, if necessary it is only 3 years. Like in Malaysia now. Their term of office is extended by the government because their performance is good. This is just cool. Well, in us, there is no performance, the corruption index falls, even extended, this is so funny. It's a bit strange. The political indications are very strong. Since there was Law 19 of 2019, the KPK regulations have become increasingly inconsequential everywhere," Saut told VOI on May 26, 2023.

When Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission was issued, a number of people began to doubt the independence of the KPK. Because, there are a number of articles that actually weaken the KPK in an effort to eradicate corruption.

Seperti Pasal 1 ayat (3), KPK adalah lembaga negara dalam rumpun kekuatan eksekutif yang melaksanakan tugas pencegahan dan pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi sesuai dengan undang-undang ini.

This rule, according to the records of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), collided with four decisions of the Constitutional Court at once, namely 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011. In this decision, it was confirmed that the KPK was not part of the executive, but an independent state institution as stated in Article 3 of the KPK Law previously.

Then Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a which reads, the KPK consists of a supervisory board of 5 people. In order to supervise the implementation of the duties and authorities of the Corruption Eradication Commission, a supervisory board was formed as referred to in Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a as written in Article 37 A.

According to ICW, the concept of an independent state institution basically does not recognize supervisory institutions, but what is used as a focus is building a surveillance system. So, conceptually, the logic theory of the DPR and the government is wrong.

The KPK itself has been monitored by the public, in terms of financial audit mechanisms from the Supreme Audit Agency, performance through the DPR with a Hearing Meeting forum, and the anti-Rasuah agency periodically reports performance to the President. Specifically for action measures, the KPK is responsible for justice power institutions," ICW wrote as reported on its official website.

Not to mention the authority of the supervisory board which is too large, including wiretapping, search, and/or confiscation permits. Such pro justicia authority should not be given to special organs that should work at the administrative control level.

In the Criminal Procedure Code regulations, only court institutions have the authority to issue permits. Meanwhile, the supervisory board itself is not part of law enforcement.