T

he government's plan to issue a regulation on lawful wiretaps has been deemed by antigraft activists as repressive and just another way to undermine the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) and other activists revealed Sunday what they said were critical points in the draft regulation to hand over the authority for wiretapping to a new body called the National Interception Center, under the auspices of the Information and Communications Ministry.

The first article ICW highlighted was one stipulating that wiretapping could only be done with the permission of the Central Jakarta District Court, whereas under the 2002 KPK Law, no court order is required.

"Considering the rampant judicial corruption in this country, it will be difficult to trust a district court chief to give such permission, especially if the wiretap is related to district court officials," said lawyer Iskandar Sonhaji.

He added the regulation would only limit the KPK in carrying out its job; most of the cases pursued by the antigraft body have been cracked through the use of wiretaps.

Iskandar cited a Transportation Ministry bribery case involving legislator Bulyan Royan, as well as the bribery case of senior prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan, as examples.

He also criticized the draft regulation for requiring law enforcement officials to submit supporting documents to the district court chief to get wiretapping clearance.

The documents must name the interception target and duration, what kind of information is expected, and other vital details that could be leaked, Iskandar said.

He pointed out the Constitutional Court had reviewed the KPK law's article on wiretaps, and had concluded it abided by the Constitution.

"If the government wants to issue a new ruling on wiretaps, it should be in the form of a law, not a regulation," he said.

The draft regulation also stipulates the district court has up to three days in which to grant permission for a wiretap, which activist said would give court officials opportunity to stall and let the suspect escape.

Former KPK deputy chairman Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas said the antigraft body, as one of a rarefied clutch of institutions with the authority to wiretap, was aware of the sensitivity entailed.

"Therefore we'd agreed with the communications ministry to audit annually all the wiretaps undertaken by the KPK," he said.

He added no other institutions did anything of the sort.

The Information and Communications Ministry previously said the government regulation was based on the 2008 Information and Electronic Transactions Law.

Existing laws dealing with wiretaps include the KPK Law, the 2003 Terrorism Law and the 2009 Narcotics and Psychotropic Drugs Law.

Those laws allow the KPK, police and the Attorney General's Office to tap phone conversations related to corruption, terrorism and drugs suspects, without prior court clearance.

Science, Technology and Ethics Foundation deputy director Agus Sudibyo said the ministry had exceeded its authority by getting involved in the wiretap issue.

"The ministry's main duty is to carry out public and political communications, as well as disseminate information," he said.